Watching now, obama says he will not hesitate to use the military option. On the surge, the violence is down and admits the surge has techniquely succeeded, but says Iraq still needs to step up. Admits he cant invade Pakistan. But says McCain cant follow Osama to the gates of hell either. 3 more parts coming next week, i cant believe Obama would agree to sit through O'rielly treating him like an ass, don't get me wrong O'reilly is an annoying fuck, i just cant believe Obama agreed to this, O'reilly ain't holding back, hes treating him like anyone else.
Actually I read in an article that was talking about the whole Obama O'reilly thing that almost half of Fox's watchers are Democrats and Independents according to the Pew Research Center.
As a democrat, I do occasionally watch fox news. Mostly for the entertainment value. Do I take in anything I see there as actual news? FUCK no.
Yeah, O'Reilly is being his typical self. Although, you have to admit that Obama is holding his own pretty well. The part I can't stand is the fact that no matter what kind of answer he gives, O'Reilly maintains his original position of "You're wrong, I'm right. I'm smart and you're dumb!" It's like doing an interview with a very childish brick wall. For example, when they were talking about Iran, Obama made it clear that he thinks Iran is dangerous and that he would use diplomacy first and military force if necessary. O'Reilly then follows up with "But I'm going to assume that Iran's going to say, 'blank' you, we're going to do what we want. And I want a president, whether it's you or McCain, who says, you ain't doing that. All right, let's go to Iraq." He always has to weasel in that last snide remark at the end and then change the subject. What a dick. O'Reilly says the rest of the interview is "very provocative".... can't wait.
I took the time to transcribe and analyze, from my perspective: Supports the self perpetuating "war on terror", Check. So I guess he is the same as McCain and Bush in believing they hate us because we're free, and not because we are over their bombing them. I know he knows what blowback is, but for some reason he is ignoring that. Why is Iran a major threat again? What proof do we have that they are building nuclear weapons? Stale MSM propaganda?We have a couple radical statements from their President which are mistranslated and blown out of proportion, and we simply don't believe that they could possible be creating nuclear power. What good is Obama's "diplomacy" if we don't even listen to what they say? We learned in 2006 they stopped all nuclear weapon building in 2003. Shouldn't it be appropriate? And shouldn't we allow Iran some sovereignty? Here he is hiding behind ambiguous statements, afraid to show his true colors. The surge was a success, was it? Where have I heard that before... Iraq is now the number 1 training ground for jihadist in the world, the 2nd most unstable country after Sudan. Its a little too soon to call it a success: Maybe a success for Iraqis, or for the defense contractors... Who would have thought the logical thing would be to keep giving this difficult nation military aid! Just add some strings! I guarantee we'll soon be in Pakistan fighting against a military we built, just like we always do. Lets help them nation build, like we did with Afghanistan! How can Obama address our economy if he is ignorant of Why the US has really gone broke? I can't wait to see the rest of it...
Then how do you propose we fight terrorism? I don't see how we can just forget about the war on terror. It is a real threat. We can manage the war much differently, but we can't just allow Al Qaeda to strengthen and attack us again.
What else can he possibly do about the situation though? I mean, the Bush White House used fear of terrorists to essentially brainwash an entire percentage of our population. It would be political suicide for Obama to not project some concern over terrorism. At least he can distinguish between who are real enemies are and other brown people.
Well alot could argue that we would be paying alot more than we already are for oil if Bush had not invaded Iraq. If Saddam had attacked Saudi Arabia we would be paying a whole hell of alot more. Well that may not be what he told the American people, but that was the plan. On a lighter note, I thought it was a loaded question Bill was asking Barack about the whole "surge working". Obama is inclined to be agianst the war and that is fair, because it is not a war that our whole interest should be in. The fact that Bin Laden hasn't been found is very, very disheartening.
Remove our military empire from the world. First off, you cannot defeat terrorism. Therefore to combat it is futile. Second, the war on terror is not only draining our economy, but it is the sole factor encouraging the enlistment into terrorist factions. You might call this appeasement, but it isn't in our best interest to be the police of the world. It doesn't pay off, and it is clearly an exploitation carried out by the military industrial complex and their lobbyists. Here's a crazy idea for our military: Defense. You can defend Obama's stance all you want, but bottom line is he supports an immoral war. Do you have any evidence for this wild claim?
Wild claim, if saddam ever invaded saudi arabia, we would be fucked. I don't agree with it, but it is a sound idea to take care of him before he would try, even if the american people don't agree with it for the most part. Why is this a wild claim?
Its a wild claim because you are justifying a war on something that never happened. Was there ever any evidence Saddam would invade Saudi Arabia? The war has only cause prices to rise, through inflation and supply/demand.
well if you know someone was going to shoot a gun at you, wouldn't you shoot them first. It is a pre-emptive war, I don't agree with it but I understand it's meaning. The fact that the war has risen gas prices is true, but it is more of a testiment to the fact that we would be worse off if saddam did do these things. A big reason why bin laden sent planes into our towers was that we had troops in Saudi Arabia. Instead of defending saudi arabia, we took out the agressor. We could of just stationed more troops in saudi arabia and fueled more hatred for america, instead we cut off the head of the attacker and are implementing a pro-american democratic political system. Saddam invaded kuwait, which may of been a small country, but could just be a precursor to his plan of eventually invading Saudi Arabia. I think we should of just stationed more defence in Saudi Arabia, and taken care of the terrorist on a day to day bases.
Saddam would never touch Saudi Arabia. Saddam had nothing to do with Bin Laden. Iraq was not an aggressor, and Saddam had control over his people. There was no terrorism there until we ousted him.
you didn't read my point, Bin laden did not like our envolvment in saudi arabia. We took out saddam so we wouldn't have to worry about him later, which is fucked up but thats what we did.
Ok, but I'm still not seeing how you can make that claim. Unless there was something I've not heard, you're the first I've heard that logic from. Seeing how they were of two completely different ideologies, and Bin Laden publicly called Hussein an infidel, I don't see why Saddam would inevitably lose his country to the allies of Saudi Arabia for this ahole. And why would Bin Laden convince someone he hates to go to war against his own people? His own family? No, but it wasn't worth $575 Billion dollars, over 4,150 confirms US deaths, and well over 150,000 killed Iraqis. 85,000 of those civilians. And its not even close to being over.
Bin Laden was agianst any US involvement in the US, mainly saudi arabia. We stationed troops in saudi arabia to protect them agianst Iraq, this pisses bin laden off, he sends plains into towers. Bush sees that our involvement in saudi arabia is leading to more and more anti american views throughtout the middle east, instead of keeping troops in Saudi Arabia for the remainder of our interest in the country. Bush decided to cut the head off of the biggest know enemy before he could attack him, so we could not have to worry about our interest being lost in Saudi Arabia. Now Iran is seeing the US is colanizing in a way and is getting pissed off, we solve one problem more arise. We are fucked if we do and fucked if we don't. The connection between the two wars is very much more related IMO, than people are lead to believe.
Osama attacked the US for alot of reasons. One of the main ones was/is our ever growing presence around the world. The culture in the middle east is being transformed as a result of America. Devout islamists are losing their traditions and the sacredness of their religion. Osama and other radicalists wish to protect their land from capitalism and all that is America. Also in regards to Sadam there are many reasons for invading Iraq. People seem to believe that Bush simply said, Welp were goin to Iraq. A major reason that many people have not heard of is that Sadam planned to stop accepting Us currency for oil. He would require the Euro. This would ofcourse ruin the us economy(far wrose than it is now) and kill the value of the dollar. George Bush was given false information by the CIA, he didnt dream up everything which people claim. And who cares anyway we have won the Iraq war, despite the misinformation about our failing presence there.