Barrack Obama says we should be at war with Al Queda in Pakistan

Obama just casually stated we should end the war with Al Queda in Iraq and go to war with Al Queda in Pakistan. That can't make the Pakistanis happy. He also says we shouldn't be friends with Musharif of Pakistan and should have talks with Amenijad of Iran and other enemies. Basically he want to make friends with the enemies we have and enemies of the friends we have. He wants to end the war on terror in Iraq and begin one in Pakistan.

Does anyone else find his ideas boldy dangerous and idiotic as I do? How can the anti war liberals be so for Obama when it appears he doesn't want to end the war on terror, just switch it over to somewhere new?

Obama just casually stated we should end the war with Al Queda in Iraq and go to war with Al Queda in Pakistan. That can't make the Pakistanis happy. He also says we shouldn't be friends with Musharif of Pakistan and should have talks with Amenijad of Iran and other enemies. Basically he want to make friends with the enemies we have and enemies of the friends we have. He wants to end the war on terror in Iraq and begin one in Pakistan.

Does anyone else find his ideas boldy dangerous and idiotic as I do? How can the anti war liberals be so for Obama when it appears he doesn't want to end the war on terror, just switch it over to somewhere new?

pseudodog07

Well, you gotta choose between Billary and that crazy old man who wants some odd war to last 100 yrs and a yound black guy who brings CHANGE ( Caps) :lol:

American democracy is laughable sometimes :P

Link?madmidnight

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6926663.stm

There is NO war on TEROR in Iraq.

Obama ftw.

There is NO war on TEROR in Iraq.

Obama ftw.

TallicaFan2005

So, you don't call fighting suicide bombers and Al Queda in Iraq a war on terror?

There is NO war on TEROR in Iraq.

Obama ftw.

TallicaFan2005

yeah, all al Queda in Iraq went there after the war started, they were never in Iraq, so this whole war on terror in Iraq is bull, we should of focused on Afghanistan and Pakistan, places with al Queda strong holds from the beginning. Obama is right, to fight terrorists, a war in Pakistan would of been much,much more effective then in Iraq.

[QUOTE="TallicaFan2005"]

There is NO war on TEROR in Iraq.

Obama ftw.

pseudodog07

So, you don't call fighting suicide bombers and Al Queda in Iraq a war on terror?

They aren't a threat to us at all..They are fighting the intruders the way they know how. If we were being invaded and didn't have the technology and supplies we had, we'd be suicide bombing too.

And there is no way a Republican is winning the election...LOL

[QUOTE="TallicaFan2005"]

There is NO war on TEROR in Iraq.

Obama ftw.

SaintLeonidas

yeah, all al Queda in Iraq went there after the war started, they were never in Iraq, so this whole war on terror in Iraq is bull, we should of focused on Afghanistan and Pakistan, places with al Queda strong holds from the beginning. Obama is right, to fight terrorists, a war in Pakistan would of been much,much more effective then in Iraq.

Well, "would have been" is great and all for speculation. But, how will Obama fighting in Pakistan without the Pakistani governemnt consent be any different from an act of war with a country we are not at war with?

[QUOTE="pseudodog07"][QUOTE="TallicaFan2005"]

There is NO war on TEROR in Iraq.

Obama ftw.

TallicaFan2005

So, you don't call fighting suicide bombers and Al Queda in Iraq a war on terror?

They aren't a threat to us at all..They are fighting the intruders the way they know how. If we were being invaded and didn't have the technology and supplies we had, we'd be suicide bombing too.

And there is no way a Republican is winning the election...LOL

So, there are no terrorists there at all? Pretty false statement there dude.

[QUOTE="SaintLeonidas"][QUOTE="TallicaFan2005"]

There is NO war on TEROR in Iraq.

Obama ftw.

pseudodog07

yeah, all al Queda in Iraq went there after the war started, they were never in Iraq, so this whole war on terror in Iraq is bull, we should of focused on Afghanistan and Pakistan, places with al Queda strong holds from the beginning. Obama is right, to fight terrorists, a war in Pakistan would of been much,much more effective then in Iraq.

Well, "would have been" is great and all for speculation. But, how will Obama fighting in Pakistan without the Pakistani governemnt consent be any different from an act of war with a country we are not at war with?

He said he would use force. He said he would use force against Iran. Would doesn't mean will. Any president "would" go to war with any country, just as long as the right circumstances come about. How can anyone start accusing someone of doing wrong for saying they "would if needed" use force, when our current president already did use force in Iraq and look where that has gotten us, not to far on the war on terror, if anything we are breeding a new hatred in Iraq and just adding men to the side of al Queda.

[QUOTE="TallicaFan2005"][QUOTE="pseudodog07"][QUOTE="TallicaFan2005"]

There is NO war on TEROR in Iraq.

Obama ftw.

pseudodog07

So, you don't call fighting suicide bombers and Al Queda in Iraq a war on terror?

They aren't a threat to us at all..They are fighting the intruders the way they know how. If we were being invaded and didn't have the technology and supplies we had, we'd be suicide bombing too.

And there is no way a Republican is winning the election...LOL

So, there are no terrorists there at all? Pretty false statement there dude.

want to tell me who was involved with 9/11? Oh wait it was al Queda wasn't it...but wait, were they in Iraq...hmm lets see what our government has to say http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html

He said he would use force. He said he would use force against Iran. Would doesn't mean will. Any president "would" go to war with any country, just as long as the right circumstances come about. How can anyone start accusing someone of doing wrong for saying they "would if needed" use force, when our current president already did use force in Iraq and look where that has gotten us, not to far on the war on terror, if anything we are breeding a new hatred in Iraq and just adding men to the side of al Queda. SaintLeonidas

I don't see how denying we are currently fighting Al Queda in Iraq, ending fighting them there and saying we would fight them in a country we aren't allready in without thier consent is somehow a better option. Either Obama is really dumb or he's the real warmonger here.

[QUOTE="SaintLeonidas"]He said he would use force. He said he would use force against Iran. Would doesn't mean will. Any president "would" go to war with any country, just as long as the right circumstances come about. How can anyone start accusing someone of doing wrong for saying they "would if needed" use force, when our current president already did use force in Iraq and look where that has gotten us, not to far on the war on terror, if anything we are breeding a new hatred in Iraq and just adding men to the side of al Queda. pseudodog07

I don't see how denying we are currently fighting Al Queda in Iraq, ending fighting them there and saying we would fight them in a counrty we aren't allready without thier consent is somehow a better option. Either Obama is really dumb or he's the real warmonger here.

lol are you kidding me. Lets see the link that said we will...let me see him say, "I will pull out of Iraq and then go into Pakistan." Wait he hasn't said he will, he said he would, would meaning if needed, if al Queda grew more and more in Pakistan, because if they did, then Pakistan would be a much,much bigger threat then Iraq. So lets see here,

We got two options people, go into Iraq with not consent, start a war with a country that doesn't harbor terror...or go into Pakistan that DOES have al Queda and fight them, yes we dont have any consent like in Iraq, but we would actually be fighting al Queda strong holds. Hmm, which war seems more just? Obviously it would be Pakistan. No one who backed Bush going into Iraq can say anything against going into Pakistan because there is more evidence and reason to go into Pakistan were as Iraq was a lie filled war.

[QUOTE="TallicaFan2005"]

There is NO war on TEROR in Iraq.

Obama ftw.

pseudodog07

So, you don't call fighting suicide bombers and Al Queda in Iraq a war on terror?

The suicide bombers and al queda came because they want to kill US soldiers. The US attracts terrorists like flies onto a pile of...

I'll let you finish that sentence. :)

[QUOTE="pseudodog07"][QUOTE="TallicaFan2005"]

There is NO war on TEROR in Iraq.

Obama ftw.

smarb001

So, you don't call fighting suicide bombers and Al Queda in Iraq a war on terror?

The suicide bombers and al queda came because they want to kill US soldiers. The US attracts terrorists like flies onto a pile of...

I'll let you finish that sentence. :)

So, all the Iraqi people who have died from terrorist bombings you just ignore? Were the terrorists just confused and thought they were US soldiers?

[QUOTE="smarb001"][QUOTE="pseudodog07"][QUOTE="TallicaFan2005"]

There is NO war on TEROR in Iraq.

Obama ftw.

pseudodog07

So, you don't call fighting suicide bombers and Al Queda in Iraq a war on terror?

The suicide bombers and al queda came because they want to kill US soldiers. The US attracts terrorists like flies onto a pile of...

I'll let you finish that sentence. :)

So, all the Iraqi people who have died from terrorist bombings you just ignore? Were the terrorists just confused and thought they were US soldiers?

Those terrorist attacking the innocent in Iraq, killing women and children and soldiers, guess what, they were not there untill after we were, so all those deaths you speak of, they are in turn our fault. If we had not gone into Iraq, then neither would al Queda. How many times do we have to say it, should I draw a time table so you can see it visually that it went Us goes into Iraq, THEN al Queda follows to attack soldiers and kill Iraqi civilians/police/military.

[QUOTE="pseudodog07"][QUOTE="smarb001"][QUOTE="pseudodog07"][QUOTE="TallicaFan2005"]

There is NO war on TEROR in Iraq.

Obama ftw.

SaintLeonidas

So, you don't call fighting suicide bombers and Al Queda in Iraq a war on terror?

The suicide bombers and al queda came because they want to kill US soldiers. The US attracts terrorists like flies onto a pile of...

I'll let you finish that sentence. :)

So, all the Iraqi people who have died from terrorist bombings you just ignore? Were the terrorists just confused and thought they were US soldiers?

Those terrorist attacking the innocent in Iraq, killing women and children and soldiers, guess what, they were not there untill after we were, so all those deaths you speak of, they are in turn our fault. If we had not gone into Iraq, then neither would al Queda. How many times do we have to say it, should I draw a time table so you can see it visually that it went Us goes into Iraq, THEN al Queda follows to attack soldiers and kill Iraqi civilians/police/military.

Right... So I guess Saddam didn't gas the Kurds until after we invaded and toppled him, huh?

[QUOTE="SaintLeonidas"][QUOTE="pseudodog07"][QUOTE="smarb001"][QUOTE="pseudodog07"][QUOTE="TallicaFan2005"]

There is NO war on TEROR in Iraq.

Obama ftw.

Osafune24

So, you don't call fighting suicide bombers and Al Queda in Iraq a war on terror?

The suicide bombers and al queda came because they want to kill US soldiers. The US attracts terrorists like flies onto a pile of...

I'll let you finish that sentence. :)

So, all the Iraqi people who have died from terrorist bombings you just ignore? Were the terrorists just confused and thought they were US soldiers?

Those terrorist attacking the innocent in Iraq, killing women and children and soldiers, guess what, they were not there untill after we were, so all those deaths you speak of, they are in turn our fault. If we had not gone into Iraq, then neither would al Queda. How many times do we have to say it, should I draw a time table so you can see it visually that it went Us goes into Iraq, THEN al Queda follows to attack soldiers and kill Iraqi civilians/police/military.

Right... So I guess Saddam didn't gas the Kurds until after we invaded and toppled him, huh?

the war in Iraq was never a war on "Saddam because of his killing of the Kurds", it was a "War on Terror" as in terrorists, as in al Queda. maybe if Bush said before the war he wasnt going in to stop him from harboring terrorist and stop him from making WMDS and instead said we are going in to stop Saddam for what he did to the Kurds then he would have a just reason for attacking, but he didnt say that. Instead he lied.

[QUOTE="SaintLeonidas"][QUOTE="pseudodog07"][QUOTE="smarb001"][QUOTE="pseudodog07"][QUOTE="TallicaFan2005"]

There is NO war on TEROR in Iraq.

Obama ftw.

Osafune24

So, you don't call fighting suicide bombers and Al Queda in Iraq a war on terror?

The suicide bombers and al queda came because they want to kill US soldiers. The US attracts terrorists like flies onto a pile of...

I'll let you finish that sentence. :)

So, all the Iraqi people who have died from terrorist bombings you just ignore? Were the terrorists just confused and thought they were US soldiers?

Those terrorist attacking the innocent in Iraq, killing women and children and soldiers, guess what, they were not there untill after we were, so all those deaths you speak of, they are in turn our fault. If we had not gone into Iraq, then neither would al Queda. How many times do we have to say it, should I draw a time table so you can see it visually that it went Us goes into Iraq, THEN al Queda follows to attack soldiers and kill Iraqi civilians/police/military.

Right... So I guess Saddam didn't gas the Kurds until after we invaded and toppled him, huh?

didnt America supply the poisonus weapons to Saddadm to kill kurds? and what does Saddam have to do with terrorists? there would have been a reasonw hy Saddam gases kurds, just like America nuked Japan

[QUOTE="Osafune24"][QUOTE="SaintLeonidas"][QUOTE="pseudodog07"][QUOTE="smarb001"][QUOTE="pseudodog07"][QUOTE="TallicaFan2005"]

There is NO war on TEROR in Iraq.

Obama ftw.

mingo123

So, you don't call fighting suicide bombers and Al Queda in Iraq a war on terror?

The suicide bombers and al queda came because they want to kill US soldiers. The US attracts terrorists like flies onto a pile of...

I'll let you finish that sentence. :)

So, all the Iraqi people who have died from terrorist bombings you just ignore? Were the terrorists just confused and thought they were US soldiers?

Those terrorist attacking the innocent in Iraq, killing women and children and soldiers, guess what, they were not there untill after we were, so all those deaths you speak of, they are in turn our fault. If we had not gone into Iraq, then neither would al Queda. How many times do we have to say it, should I draw a time table so you can see it visually that it went Us goes into Iraq, THEN al Queda follows to attack soldiers and kill Iraqi civilians/police/military.

Right... So I guess Saddam didn't gas the Kurds until after we invaded and toppled him, huh?

1. didnt America supply the poisonus weapons to Saddadm to kill kurds? and 2. what does Saddam have to do with terrorists? 3. there would have been a reasonw hy Saddam gases kurds, just like America nuked Japan

1. Probably, and hey, wouldn't you know it, we supplied weapons, funds, and knowledge to the Taliban and Al Qaeda as well :O

2. Gassing cities for the sake of killing people isn't a kind of terrorism?

3. Nagasaki and Hiroshima contained important military bases for the Japanese military and one of them, I forget which, was the only target not containing a POW camp. If our soul intent was to kill as many people as possible, we would have attacked other cities, and we never would have stopped. So I hardly consider the atomic bombings and Saddam's genocidal gassing of the Kurds to be on the same level.

[1. Probably, and hey, wouldn't you know it, we supplied weapons, funds, and knowledge to the Taliban and Al Qaeda as well :O

2. Gassing cities for the sake of killing people isn't a kind of terrorism?

3. Nagasaki and Hiroshima contained important military bases for the Japanese military and one of them, I forget which, was the only target not containing a POW camp. If our soul intent was to kill as many people as possible, we would have attacked other cities, and we never would have stopped. So I hardly consider the atomic bombings and Saddam's genocidal gassing of the Kurds to be on the same level.

Osafune24

1. Agreed but I dont knowledge was supplied to Taliban tho, they are natural born killers :P
2. there must have been a reason just like how U.S. used atomic bombs.......to blow up some bases :|
3. probably more innocents died with nukes then teh gas

I think the guy is trying to take the support of "majority" of Americans....sentencedogu

are majority of Americans THAT stupid?

[QUOTE="mingo123"][QUOTE="Osafune24"][QUOTE="SaintLeonidas"][QUOTE="pseudodog07"][QUOTE="smarb001"][QUOTE="pseudodog07"][QUOTE="TallicaFan2005"]

There is NO war on TEROR in Iraq.

Obama ftw.

Osafune24

So, you don't call fighting suicide bombers and Al Queda in Iraq a war on terror?

The suicide bombers and al queda came because they want to kill US soldiers. The US attracts terrorists like flies onto a pile of...

I'll let you finish that sentence. :)

So, all the Iraqi people who have died from terrorist bombings you just ignore? Were the terrorists just confused and thought they were US soldiers?

Those terrorist attacking the innocent in Iraq, killing women and children and soldiers, guess what, they were not there untill after we were, so all those deaths you speak of, they are in turn our fault. If we had not gone into Iraq, then neither would al Queda. How many times do we have to say it, should I draw a time table so you can see it visually that it went Us goes into Iraq, THEN al Queda follows to attack soldiers and kill Iraqi civilians/police/military.

Right... So I guess Saddam didn't gas the Kurds until after we invaded and toppled him, huh?

1. didnt America supply the poisonus weapons to Saddadm to kill kurds? and 2. what does Saddam have to do with terrorists? 3. there would have been a reasonw hy Saddam gases kurds, just like America nuked Japan

1. Probably, and hey, wouldn't you know it, we supplied weapons, funds, and knowledge to the Taliban and Al Qaeda as well :O

2. Gassing cities for the sake of killing people isn't a kind of terrorism?

3. Nagasaki and Hiroshima contained important military bases for the Japanese military and one of them, I forget which, was the only target not containing a POW camp. If our soul intent was to kill as many people as possible, we would have attacked other cities, and we never would have stopped. So I hardly consider the atomic bombings and Saddam's genocidal gassing of the Kurds to be on the same level.

1)True..

2)define terrorism

3)Nuking is worse...much worse.

[QUOTE="sentencedogu"]I think the guy is trying to take the support of "majority" of Americans....mingo123

are majority of Americans THAT stupid?

the majority of Americans would of backed a war in Pakistan over a war in Iraq, especially now that we know the truth.

[QUOTE="sentencedogu"]I think the guy is trying to take the support of "majority" of Americans....mingo123

are majority of Americans THAT stupid?

considering there are many Americans scared of "terrorists invading America"......you know politics is about fooling people.

You know what doesn't make me happy? The Pakistanis not doing anything about Al Quada in their back yard.

[QUOTE="pseudodog07"][QUOTE="TallicaFan2005"]

There is NO war on TEROR in Iraq.

Obama ftw.

TallicaFan2005

So, you don't call fighting suicide bombers and Al Queda in Iraq a war on terror?

They aren't a threat to us at all..They are fighting the intruders the way they know how. If we were being invaded and didn't have the technology and supplies we had, we'd be suicide bombing too.

And there is no way a Republican is winning the election...LOL

of course we are safe. it's not like these "freedon fighters" have attacked our country before. oh wait.... :?

You know what doesn't make me happy? The Pakistanis not doing anything about Al Quada in their back yard.

slateman_basic

Neither USA did anything about PKK in their backyard untill Turks decided to go in and clean it themselves....does that make you happy?

I bet Iranians were angry too when America supplied western weapons to Iraqis....

You know what doesn't make me happy? The Pakistanis not doing anything about Al Quada in their back yard.

slateman_basic

maybe coz......they dont exist?

Y'all are acting like we're not currently fighting terrorists in Afghanistan. From what I recall, the Iraq invasion had nothing to do with fighting terrorists.

Secondly, why wouldn't a republican win this election? In fact, there is a very good chance McCain will win. Republicans will vote McCain, and (assuming Obama wins), democrats will vote for Obama. A LOT of independents will be voting for McCain. He is the most moderate of all the canidates.

[QUOTE="slateman_basic"]

You know what doesn't make me happy? The Pakistanis not doing anything about Al Quada in their back yard.mingo123

maybe coz......they dont exist?

Yea . . . sure . . . keep believing that.

Y'all are acting like we're not currently fighting terrorists in Afghanistan. From what I recall, the Iraq invasion had nothing to do with fighting terrorists.

Secondly, why wouldn't a republican win this election? In fact, there is a very good chance McCain will win. Republicans will vote McCain, and (assuming Obama wins), democrats will vote for Obama. A LOT of independents will be voting for McCain. He is the most moderate of all the canidates.

The_Mac_Daddy

iraq invasion was about the WMD which was a lie so America needed new excuse which was "zomgs teh terrorists, we muzt protectz u" anyways when you say terrorists in Afghanistan, do you mean Taliban? taliban are no terrorists, werent they the angels when russia attacked Afghanistan and America supported them....and now they are terrorists coz america dnt like dem anymore? :roll:

[QUOTE="mingo123"][QUOTE="slateman_basic"]

You know what doesn't make me happy? The Pakistanis not doing anything about Al Quada in their back yard.slateman_basic

maybe coz......they dont exist?

Yea . . . sure . . . keep believing that.

all i heard was Taliban were in Balochistan, and taliban are not al-qaeda

Y'all are acting like we're not currently fighting terrorists in Afghanistan. From what I recall, the Iraq invasion had nothing to do with fighting terrorists.

Secondly, why wouldn't a republican win this election? In fact, there is a very good chance McCain will win. Republicans will vote McCain, and (assuming Obama wins), democrats will vote for Obama. A LOT of independents will be voting for McCain. He is the most moderate of all the canidates.

mingo123

We're not figting terrorists in Afghanistan. We're too spread out in Iraq. Thats why the Commandant of the Marine Corps is trying to convince the President that the Marines should be transferred to Afghanistan.

[QUOTE="slateman_basic"][QUOTE="mingo123"][QUOTE="slateman_basic"]

You know what doesn't make me happy? The Pakistanis not doing anything about Al Quada in their back yard.mingo123

maybe coz......they dont exist?

Yea . . . sure . . . keep believing that.

all i heard was Taliban were in Balochistan, and taliban are not al-qaeda

Meh, tomato, tomato. They're the same. They are both commited to the destruction of the USA. Thats really all that concerns me. Both groups operate in Pakistan. Especially around the border with Afghanistan.

[QUOTE="The_Mac_Daddy"]

Y'all are acting like we're not currently fighting terrorists in Afghanistan. From what I recall, the Iraq invasion had nothing to do with fighting terrorists.

Secondly, why wouldn't a republican win this election? In fact, there is a very good chance McCain will win. Republicans will vote McCain, and (assuming Obama wins), democrats will vote for Obama. A LOT of independents will be voting for McCain. He is the most moderate of all the canidates.

mingo123

iraq invasion was about the WMD which was a lie so America needed new excuse which was "zomgs teh terrorists, we muzt protectz u" anyways when you say terrorists in Afghanistan, do you mean Taliban? taliban are no terrorists, werent they the angels when russia attacked Afghanistan and America supported them....and now they are terrorists coz america dnt like dem anymore? :roll:

America was going to Iraq for WMD's and Sadaam. Regardless of if any WMD's were found. After they overthrew the Iraq government, and implimented a new one, terrorists moved in... and now we're fighting terrorists there.

We are fighting both the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. I don't know if you know this, but they are allies. And how in the **** are you going to say the Taliban are not terrorists?

According to Human Rights Watch, bombing and other attacks on Afghan civilians by the Taliban (and to a lesser extent Hezb-e-Islami Gulbuddin), are reported to have "sharply escalated in 2006" with "at least 669 Afghan civilians were killed in at least 350 armed attacks, most of which appear to have been intentionally launched at civilians or civilian objects."[

[QUOTE="mingo123"]

Y'all are acting like we're not currently fighting terrorists in Afghanistan. From what I recall, the Iraq invasion had nothing to do with fighting terrorists.

Secondly, why wouldn't a republican win this election? In fact, there is a very good chance McCain will win. Republicans will vote McCain, and (assuming Obama wins), democrats will vote for Obama. A LOT of independents will be voting for McCain. He is the most moderate of all the canidates.

slateman_basic

We're not figting terrorists in Afghanistan. We're too spread out in Iraq. Thats why the Commandant of the Marine Corps is trying to convince the President that the Marines should be transferred to Afghanistan.

[QUOTE="slateman_basic"][QUOTE="mingo123"][QUOTE="slateman_basic"]

You know what doesn't make me happy? The Pakistanis not doing anything about Al Quada in their back yard.mingo123

maybe coz......they dont exist?

Yea . . . sure . . . keep believing that.

all i heard was Taliban were in Balochistan, and taliban are not al-qaeda

Meh, tomato, tomato. They're the same. They are both commited to the destruction of the USA. Thats really all that concerns me. Both groups operate in Pakistan. Especially around the border with Afghanistan.

That was me that had that quote, not mingo. The first one i mean.

And how are you going to tell me we are not fighting terrorists in Afghanistan??

[QUOTE="slateman_basic"][QUOTE="mingo123"]

Y'all are acting like we're not currently fighting terrorists in Afghanistan. From what I recall, the Iraq invasion had nothing to do with fighting terrorists.

Secondly, why wouldn't a republican win this election? In fact, there is a very good chance McCain will win. Republicans will vote McCain, and (assuming Obama wins), democrats will vote for Obama. A LOT of independents will be voting for McCain. He is the most moderate of all the canidates.

The_Mac_Daddy

We're not figting terrorists in Afghanistan. We're too spread out in Iraq. Thats why the Commandant of the Marine Corps is trying to convince the President that the Marines should be transferred to Afghanistan.

[QUOTE="slateman_basic"][QUOTE="mingo123"][QUOTE="slateman_basic"]

You know what doesn't make me happy? The Pakistanis not doing anything about Al Quada in their back yard.mingo123

maybe coz......they dont exist?

Yea . . . sure . . . keep believing that.

all i heard was Taliban were in Balochistan, and taliban are not al-qaeda

Meh, tomato, tomato. They're the same. They are both commited to the destruction of the USA. Thats really all that concerns me. Both groups operate in Pakistan. Especially around the border with Afghanistan.

That was me that had that quote, not mingo. The first one i mean.

And how are you going to tell me we are not fighting terrorists in Afghanistan??

Because I've been there. Because we're only now sending in more troops. We're doing very little, in comparison to what we're capable of.

The best thing we're doing is Embeded Training Teams. Basically, three and four man teams are training Afghan army units, and then going out on patrol with them. Acting as Platoon leaders, radiomen, corpsmen, ect.

In the 3 months he was there, I have a SGT who came into contact 78 times. Thats almost once a day. Numerous times, his FOB was openly attacked.

This is far from secure. Not when we have the full might of the US military. Of course, its not available because we're in Iraq . . .

[QUOTE="slateman_basic"][QUOTE="mingo123"]

Y'all are acting like we're not currently fighting terrorists in Afghanistan. From what I recall, the Iraq invasion had nothing to do with fighting terrorists.

Secondly, why wouldn't a republican win this election? In fact, there is a very good chance McCain will win. Republicans will vote McCain, and (assuming Obama wins), democrats will vote for Obama. A LOT of independents will be voting for McCain. He is the most moderate of all the canidates.

The_Mac_Daddy

We're not figting terrorists in Afghanistan. We're too spread out in Iraq. Thats why the Commandant of the Marine Corps is trying to convince the President that the Marines should be transferred to Afghanistan.

[QUOTE="slateman_basic"][QUOTE="mingo123"][QUOTE="slateman_basic"]

You know what doesn't make me happy? The Pakistanis not doing anything about Al Quada in their back yard.mingo123

maybe coz......they dont exist?

Yea . . . sure . . . keep believing that.

all i heard was Taliban were in Balochistan, and taliban are not al-qaeda

Meh, tomato, tomato. They're the same. They are both commited to the destruction of the USA. Thats really all that concerns me. Both groups operate in Pakistan. Especially around the border with Afghanistan.

That was me that had that quote, not mingo. The first one i mean.

And how are you going to tell me we are not fighting terrorists in Afghanistan??

[QUOTE="slateman_basic"][QUOTE="mingo123"][QUOTE="slateman_basic"]

You know what doesn't make me happy? The Pakistanis not doing anything about Al Quada in their back yard.mingo123

maybe coz......they dont exist?

Yea . . . sure . . . keep believing that.

all i heard was Taliban were in Balochistan, and taliban are not al-qaeda

This man speaks the truth.

"Tonight at 11. President Barack Obama declares war on the terrorist nation of Israel. Iran to aid in occupation."cametall

Niiiice. Except, we'd lose.