Condi believe US would be safe under Obama

[240 is Back]

In an interview with Politico and Yahoo News released Thursday, Rice was asked if she would feel secure with a president Obama.

"Oh, the United States will be fine," she responded. "I think that we are having an important debate about how we keep the country safe," she said, pointing to the Middle East and Iraq.

[240 is Back]

Now, you have a choice.

You can agree with Condi, and no longer say "Obama will be soft on terror"

OR

You can claim to know more about national security than Condi Rice.



Interesting.

[OzmO]

Now, you have a choice.

You can agree with Condi, and no longer say "Obama will be soft on terror"

OR

You can claim to know more about national security than Condi Rice.



Interesting.

She should talk to Coach.   

[tonymctones]

Now, you have a choice.

You can agree with Condi, and no longer say "Obama will be soft on terror"

OR

You can claim to know more about national security than Condi Rice.



Interesting.

LOL how often have you and others slandered this woman when her opinion didnt fall in line with yours?

[240 is Back]

LOL how often have you and others slandered this woman when her opinion didnt fall in line with yours?

She's a very intelligent person.  Did she "let" 911 happen?  Evidence says it's highly probable.  I've always agreed she is one brilliant person, one of the smartest in DC.

[OzmO]

LOL how often have you and others slandered this woman when her opinion didnt fall in line with yours?

I think the premise of 240 post is what do you think about her statement?  Agree or disagree?

[tonymctones]

I think the premise of 240 post is what do you think about her statement?  Agree or disagree?

I havent seen anything thus far to prove her statement. I guess it depends on how you look at it would the mainland US be safe? probably, but thats probably true of anybody that takes the presidency right now. I dont think he is capable of defending US territory and assets abroad very well though.

[Dos Equis]

This is news? 

[240 is Back]

This is news? 

Yes.  Former national security adviser, secretary of state, and republican loyalist saying that America will be safe under a President Obama.  This goes against what some republicans, like Guiliani and newt have said, that we'll be attacked under Dem leadership.

Condi has also said she won't admit who she's voting for.

It severaly undermines McCain's choice that he's the best candidate for national security when condi admits that either guy will handle it.

[tonymctones]

Yes.  Former national security adviser, secretary of state, and republican loyalist saying that America will be safe under a President Obama.  This goes against what some republicans, like Guiliani and newt have said, that we'll be attacked under Dem leadership.

Condi has also said she won't admit who she's voting for.

It severaly undermines McCain's choice that he's the best candidate for national security when condi admits that either guy will handle it.

there is more to national security than protecting the mainland which by the way will more than likely be safe even if a chimp was president. im sure if you asked who it would be safer with she would reply mccain...agree or disagree?

[Dos Equis]

Right.  The armed forces and all of our defense/intelligence agencies aren't going to fold up their tents just because we put a quasi-socialist in office. 

[240 is Back]

there is more to national security than protecting the mainland which by the way will more than likely be safe even if a chimp was president. im sure if you asked who it would be safer with she would reply mccain...agree or disagree?

The mainland wasn't safe on 9/11.

The mainland wasn't safe when anthrax was mailed to govt offices by a govt employee.

Right.  The armed forces and all of our defense/intelligence agencies aren't going to fold up their tents just because we put a quasi-socialist in office. 

But he will cut their funding, right?  Which is the same thing.  We have 800 known bases worldwide.  Do we need that many?  CHina is next with what, 80?

[tonymctones]

The mainland wasn't safe on 9/11.

The mainland wasn't safe when anthrax was mailed to govt offices by a govt employee.

But he will cut their funding, right?  Which is the same thing.  We have 800 known bases worldwide.  Do we need that many?  CHina is next with what, 80?

im sure savior obama would have shot those planes down with lasers from his eyes right? he wouldnt have been able to stop either one of those and you didnt answer my question.

[OzmO]

I havent seen anything thus far to prove her statement. I guess it depends on how you look at it would the mainland US be safe? probably, but thats probably true of anybody that takes the presidency right now. I dont think he is capable of defending US territory and assets abroad very well though.

The continental United States is not safe.  It is not secure.  People can get into this country pretty easy.  Our ports are poorly secured.  our borders are poorly secured and our airports are even worse.  Right now, virtually anyone with $1000 bucks could launch an attack that would halt air travel for at least one day and cause another panic.

It's a fact.

Her point is, is that it doesn't matter who's in the White House.  We will do what we need to do.  The idea that a democrat in the white makes us less safe is an illusion carefully brought about through political propaganda crap.  And Condi, who i am not a fan of, isn't that subject to crap.

[tonymctones]

The continental United States is not safe.  It is not secure.  People can get into this country pretty easy.  Our ports are poorly secured.  our borders are poorly secured and our airports are even worse.  Right now, virtually anyone with $1000 bucks could launch an attack that would halt air travel for at least one day and cause another panic.

It's a fact.

Her point is, is that it doesn't matter who's in the White House.  We will do what we need to do.  The idea that a democrat in the white makes us less safe is an illusion carefully brought about through political propaganda crap.  And Condi, who i am not a fan of, isn't that subject to crap.

do you think that our territory and assets abroad will be safe with obama?

[OzmO]

do you think that our territory and assets abroad will be safe with obama?

Absolutely.  You know why?  Our assets are safe becuase we are capitalists.   there's no way, our companies are going to let our government not do something if our (their) assets are threatened.

Are you kidding me?

At the core, we are a government whose sole purpose is to protect it's people's interests.  (makes you wonder after they now gave Mexican Truck drivers full access for deliveries in the USA and took away American Jobs in America....but that another issue) However, one thing government will do is protect the interests of the companies that help put them in power.   And i agree with that for the most part!  We should protect our economic interests abroad and we do. 

It's the way things are and will always be, no matter who's in charge. 

[240 is Back]

do you think that our territory and assets abroad will be safe with obama?

Please tell us precisely what Obama will do/not do, compared to mccain.

How will obama fvck it up?  Details, not vague insults.

[tonymctones]

Please tell us precisely what Obama will do/not do, compared to mccain.

How will obama fvck it up?  Details, not vague insults.

well obama would appease potential threats, he didnt see Iran as a threat. Didnt support the surge yet still supported a pull out date even before the surge was deemed succesful.

[240 is Back]

well obama would appease potential threats,

Please cite examples of what he would do.

"He would appease!" is a generic phrase with zero content.

To appease is to give certain considerations (dropped sanctions, money, etc) to a country after they threaten force.  Which nations would he give what sanctions to, specifically?



By the way, two examples of appeasement:

1) North Korea sets off a nuke in Oct 2006 then fires 6 ICBMs at Hawaii on July 4 2007, the same moment a space shuttle launched.  Bush paid them one million barrels of oil to stop their WMD and ICBM program.  They fired missiles at us, and we paid them to stop.

2) Iran fires missiles over the Persian Gulf to show they have long-ish range missile guidance capability.  Bush responds by sending his #3 man in the state dept to iran for classified discussions.

Iran and NK were both on the terror state list, and Bush had insisted repeatedly that he would never negotiate with terror states.

THAT is appeasement.   Giving them somthing when they threatn you.
now, I just gave you 2 specific examples.  Please give me a few examples of how Obama is an appeaser.

[OzmO]

well obama would appease potential threats, he didnt see Iran as a threat. Didnt support the surge yet still supported a pull out date even before the surge was deemed succesful.

BUSH did the same thing with N.Korea. 

Obama, like many many others were skeptical of the surge working.   For both political and obvious reasons. 

His statement about the pull out seems to have rung true or at least with in a 6 month window.  so what?   

You seem to be confusing campaign rhetoric with the reality of making real decisions in office.

What would threaten the USA?  Anything that would threaten it's prosperity which is directly tied to it's economy.  Any president wouldn't let that happen if possible.

The idea that Obama, would appease threats instead of doing what's needed is nothing but programming brought to you by your local party's offensive political campaign.  Reagan didn't do crap after 240 marines died.  Bush 1  stopped in Kuwait.  Nixon pulled out of vietnam.  BUSH 2 stopped in tora bora.  So what?

[tonymctones]

Please cite examples of what he would do.

"He would appease!" is a generic phrase with zero content.

To appease is to give certain considerations (dropped sanctions, money, etc) to a country after they threaten force.  Which nations would he give what sanctions to, specifically?



By the way, two examples of appeasement:

1) North Korea sets off a nuke in Oct 2006 then fires 6 ICBMs at Hawaii on July 4 2007, the same moment a space shuttle launched.  Bush paid them one million barrels of oil to stop their WMD and ICBM program.  They fired missiles at us, and we paid them to stop.

2) Iran fires missiles over the Persian Gulf to show they have long-ish range missile guidance capability.  Bush responds by sending his #3 man in the state dept to iran for classified discussions.
Iran and NK were both on the terror state list, and Bush had insisted repeatedly that he would never negotiate with terror states.

THAT is appeasement.   Giving them somthing when they threatn you.
now, I just gave you 2 specific examples.  Please give me a few examples of how Obama is an appeaser.

if this is appeasement then explain to me how obama wanting to sit down and talk with them isnt

[OzmO]

if this is appeasement then explain to me how obama wanting to sit down and talk with them isnt

It's called trying to get things done without violence FIRST.   That's what's BUSH is doing and that's what Obama suggests we should do.

[240 is Back]

if this is appeasement then explain to me how obama wanting to sit down and talk with them isnt

You've acknowledged the process of negotiating with terror states is appeasement.

So you're saying that both Bush and Obama are appeasers?

[tonymctones]

BUSH did the same thing with N.Korea. 

Obama, like many many others were skeptical of the surge working.   For both political and obvious reasons. 

His statement about the pull out seems to have rung true or at least with in a 6 month window.  so what?   

You seem to be confusing campaign rhetoric with the reality of making real decisions in office.

What would threaten the USA?  Anything that would threaten it's prosperity which is directly tied to it's economy.  Any president wouldn't let that happen if possible.

The idea that Obama, would appease threats instead of doing what's needed is nothing but programming brought to you by your local party's offensive political campaign.  Reagan didn't do crap after 240 marines died.  Bush 1  stopped in Kuwait.  Nixon pulled out of vietnam.  BUSH 2 stopped in tora bora.  So what?

many ppl were skeptical understandably but many ppl admit they were wrong as well, you dont set a time table for pulling out when shit isnt stable which is what obama wanted to do.

No president would knowingly let something like that happen i agree

You seem to like the economy issue and i like you see it as probably the biggest issue. Mark my words obama will raise taxes on the middle class.

[tonymctones]

You've acknowledged the process of negotiating with terror states is appeasement.

So you're saying that both Bush and Obama are appeasers?

yes but slightly different
well bush sent a man to have observe discussions so we have no idea what is being discussed, while ultimatums and sanctions are in effect if im not mistaken.
obama said he would be willing to talk to iran with no qualifications.