206 replies to this topic

[Northern Sol]

Yawn.

You do seem to find facts tedious. You preach about Afghanistan but you don't know the difference between the Taliban and the Al Qaeda.

[Stevo]

What use are "talks" if the Taliban (not Al Qaeda who have little stake in events in Afghanistan) aren't interested?

Not to mention that since power rests with Karzai, Obama has nothing to negotiate with other than US withdrawal.



What have past presidents achieved?

Almost all past negotiations have been abject failures with nothing to show for them.



Dead terrorists are an achievement. And what use is "credibility" anyway?

Would credibility have persuaded Pakistan to stop harbouring bin Laden, would it force them to control their own territory in Waziristan?

You've no idea whether or not the Taliban would have consented to talks. Nato are of the opinion that post-withdrawal, al-qaeda will re-establish in Afghanistan in short order. What's more certain is that having announced the date by which a withdrawal will be complete, Obama has absolutely nothing to negotiate with.

The Carter and Clinton administrations both made significant contributions in the middle east. I'm surprised Obama hasn't wanted to continue this Democrat tradition. Perhaps more drone bombing could sort it all out, eh?

In your excitement over dead Pakistanis you seem to have forgotten that Obama is an elected politicion. If he loses in November, it won't be because he suffers from an excess of credibility in the eyes of the electorate.

[Northern Sol]

It won't be because of his foreign policy either. Perhaps you think that the killing of bin Laden is unpopular with the US electorate.

Remind me what Clinton achieved in the Middle East. There haven't been any significant peace deals since the Camp David agreement and that was decades ago.

Whether the Taliban would or would not have agreed to talks, I said that the US had nothing to negotiate with, and you can't name anything that would contradict this.

The Taliban are one organisation and Al Qaeda are another. Fighting the Taliban won't help to defeat Al Qaeda. If Al Qaeda come back then the US can target them with drone attacks which have been very effective elsewhere.

[Northern Sol]

The idea that we should be fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan in order to combat Al Qaeda (who are not in Afghanistan in significant numbers) but we shouldn't fight Al Qaeda in Pakistan or Yemen is one of the absurd ideas around at the moment.

Still thank God that only drones kill civilians and that the fighting in Afghanistan is completely free of innocent bystanders.

[Severus]

I would like to know who would vote for Romney. Come on own up.

[GeordieSaint]

1. You've no idea whether or not the Taliban would have consented to talks.

2. Nato are of the opinion that post-withdrawal, al-qaeda will re-establish in Afghanistan in short order.

3. What's more certain is that having announced the date by which a withdrawal will be complete, Obama has absolutely nothing to negotiate with.

1. NATO attempted to start negiotations since 2006-07 and the Taliban refused, just as they did in 2001 when the Americans attempted to get Bin Laden handed over without a fight. Incidentally, the Taliban have now been brought to the table recently due to military pressure from NATO and the drone strikes in Pakistan.

2. Where do you get your information from? I have never read that opinion anywhere or heard it!

3. Obama does have a bargaining chip. The 2014 withdrawal date is for 'conventional' ground troops only operating in a combat role. There will still be plenty of mentors in the country, US air assets in various areas of the country and SF capabilities to hunt down and kill wanted personnel. We aren't simply leaving Afghanistan to fester post-14.

[GeordieSaint]

I would like to know who would vote for Romney. Come on own up.

I actually quite liked John McCain for some reason but would never vote for Romney. Too plastic looking for starters and he insulted us during the Olympics!

[Northern Sol]

I actually quite liked John McCain for some reason but would never vote for Romney. Too plastic looking for starters and he insulted us during the Olympics!

Tbf to Romney, half his "gaffes" aren't gaffes at all. He only said what everybody was thinking at the time.

[steef]

The fact that one candidate is a mormon, and a mormon who has stated that his beliefs will influence his policy making, should discount him entirely from the thoughts of any right minded person. Obama all the way for me.

[Northern Sol]

For those of the odd belief that Arabs and Israelis fighting each other is Obama's fault. This link might explain why there hasn't been much effort in the MidEast recently. The conditions for state level negotiations just don't exist.

http://www.haaretz.c...remium-1.469714

tl; dr version


Through indirect talk mediated by the U.S., the PM was ready in 2010 to discuss Israeli withdrawal from the Golan Heights. The talks were abandoned in 2011, however, with the outbreak of revolt in Syria.

[John Drake]

Well, the election is tomorrow.

US pollsters still suggest it will be a close run thing even though TRL has it as an Obama landslide!

[Severus]

I'm fairly confident Obama will get a second term. Romney just isn't a viable candidate. Saying that, dubya got elected, twice!

[gingerjon]

The poll of polls puts it something like 47.9% to 47.4% to Obama but a comparative landslide in electoral college points.

http://www7.politica...national-polls/

For the gazillions spent by Romney he's reached the dizzy heights of 47.4% having started on 46%.

For the gazillions spent by Obama he's more or less stayed the same.

This is democracy, apparently.

[JohnM]

Its a choice between, (by European standards) right wing and more right wing and to be honest I don't think it will make any difference. Israel will bomb Iraq no matter who is in charge in the US. he country will only ever do anything that is is it's own interests, no matter who is President.

I'd vote for Romney cos his father in law is from Bridgend and he is a free enterprise man, but I could not vote for him because of his bizarre religious views, However, I would vote for him because as Wikipedia has it ( and you can bet that if any of that was wrong it would be corrected double quick) " Romney helped develop and enact into law the Massachusetts health care reform legislation, the first of its kind in the nation, which provided near-universal health insurance access through state-level subsidies and individual mandates to purchase insurance. He also presided over the elimination of a projected $1.2–1.5 billion deficit through a combination of spending cuts, increased fees, and the closure of corporate tax loopholes. As for him being rich, his net worth is estimated in 2012 at $190–250 million. or about £100 to £150 million. That puts him considerably behind Labour's JK Rowling's at £560m, London-based founder of the Spotify music website Daniel Ek with a fortune of £190m - the same amount as David and Victoria Beckham...oh and Wigan's saviour Dave Whelan is richer, too, as is Labour luvvie R Branson.

However, in the end I've gone with Obama, but only because he does not seem to be ramming religion down people's necks. Wobbled a bit when I heard Bruce Springsteen was supporting Obama, though.

Edited by JohnM, 05 November 2012 - 05:23 PM.

[JohnM]

This is democracy, apparently.

yes, and its a pain when its so close. How does the losing 49.99999% get represented? In any case, there is the Senate and the House of Representatives to consider, too.

[gingerjon]

Its a choice between, (by European standards) right wing and more right wing and to be honest I don't think it will make any difference. Israel will bomb Iraq no matter who is in charge in the US. he country will only ever do anything that is is it's own interests, no matter who is President.

I'd vote for Romney cos his father in law is from Bridgend and he is a free enterprise man, but I could not vote for him because of his bizarre religious views, However, I would vote for him because as Wikipedia has it ( and you can bet that if any of that was wrong it would be corrected double quick) " Romney helped develop and enact into law the Massachusetts health care reform legislation, the first of its kind in the nation, which provided near-universal health insurance access through state-level subsidies and individual mandates to purchase insurance. He also presided over the elimination of a projected $1.2–1.5 billion deficit through a combination of spending cuts, increased fees, and the closure of corporate tax loopholes. As for him being rich, his net worth is estimated in 2012 at $190–250 million. or about £100 to £150 million. That puts him considerably behind Labour's JK Rowling's at £560m, London-based founder of the Spotify music website Daniel Ek with a fortune of £190m - the same amount as David and Victoria Beckham...oh and Wigan's saviour Dave Whelan is richer, too, as is Labour luvvie R Branson.

However, in the end I've gone with Obama, but only because he does not seem to be ramming religion down people's necks. Wobbled a bit when I heard Bruce Springsteen was supporting Obama, though.

There was a site where you could answer questions and it would pair you up with your actual nearest candidate.

I got Jill Stein who is apparently the Green Party candidate.

If he was over here Obama would be a model old-school one-nation Tory.

[Severus]

However, in the end I've gone with Obama, but only because he does not seem to be ramming religion down people's necks. Wobbled a bit when I heard Bruce Springsteen was supporting Obama, though.

If presidential candidates did not pander to the religious, would religion be such a major factor in elections and therefore candidates would not focus on religion? What I am saying is that is it a vicious circle. I thought one of the founding principals of the US was the separation of church and state. Why is religion such a political issue?

[John Drake]

The poll of polls puts it something like 47.9% to 47.4% to Obama but a comparative landslide in electoral college points.

http://www7.politica...national-polls/

For the gazillions spent by Romney he's reached the dizzy heights of 47.4% having started on 46%.

For the gazillions spent by Obama he's more or less stayed the same.

This is democracy, apparently.

It's no dafter than our system.

[gingerjon]

It's no dafter than our system.

In theory it shouldn't be but it manages the quite incredible double whammy of paralysis and division on an alarmingly regular basis.

[John Drake]

Romney helped develop and enact into law the Massachusetts health care reform legislation, the first of its kind in the nation, which provided near-universal health insurance access through state-level subsidies and individual mandates to purchase insurance.

Which makes it even odder that he has pledged to repeal 'Obamacare' if he is elected President. Isn't is more or less the same thing?