Obama: America's New Cowboy

http://mensnewsdaily.com/2007/08/02/barack-obama-butt-kickin-terror-fightin-cowboy/

and

http://www.boston.com/news/world/asia/articles/2007/08/03/pakistan_criticizes_obama_on_comments/

LOLz @ all the anti-war liberals who are going to vote for this faggot and think they're informed.

The first article is filled with copious amounts of gay because Obama is actually right. The dehumanization of our enemies have gotten us nowhere and at the very least IF we did decide to 'unilaterally strike nations harboring terrorists' we can say that we tried a diplomatic approach.

I'm wondering what exactly >>1 has against using both approaches?

>>1
Rofl, good thing we have obama to make the world even more pissed off at us.  Yeah, that's *just* what we need right now.

Yes, invade one more part of the Ummah! As long as we first extend the olive branch, Dar al-Islam will hold no ill will!

nos Americani sumus fortissimi; sed ecce! video Arabiae. Arabiae clamavant "Christianus, Christianus!" e templum dei ambulant et in bella sancti quarebant mors. Arabiae nihil sunt. 

et nihil curo.

Because Arabs care about diplomacy.

>>4

You faggots still don't get it. It doesn't matter what the other country believes or does. As long as *we* TRY a diplomatic approach, no one can start crying about strikes.

It's not this even matters, you think we're attacking these countries to "defend freedom" and shit. That's a hot load of dung and feces. You guys act like Obama is tricking people, or that someone else in office will do things differently. SHIT IS SET IN STONE. And it's not for the benefit of the american people in the FIRST PLACE so STFU.

>>5
Are you retarded? One can't condemn that bastard Bush and then espouse a policy more radical than his.

I don't think we attack any nation to defend freedom. If we wanted to defend freedom we'd withdraw the army and air-force and navy and we'd annihilate any nation that dared attempt to invade the United States. We would not impose freedom -- for that is something that can't be given, let alone impose.

If we want to defend freedom, then let us be zealots and fanatics. Let us tell all nations that you may live as you desire, but if you seek to deprive me or my family or my fellow citizens of liberty then you shall face an unstoppable wave of freedom-crazed maniacs. Let them know that for the cause of American liberty we will not bow a knee, we will not waiver and we will not be forced into submission.

>>6
Yeah, I don't really get it either.  Out of one corner of their mouths, the liberals scream about how awful and aggressive Bush's foreign policy is, while out of the other corner of their mouth they endorse Obama for 2008, someone who, based on his comments regarding Pakistan might be a whole lot more of what they are always criticizing Bush for. 

Of course, we went to war back in the 90's, and Barbara Boxer (D) and all of them supported Clinton back then, but now that Bush is doing it it's wrong...  Perhaps the liberals like the aggressive foreign policy of the neo-conservatives, and they just want someone a little more 'politically correct' to wage the war so they can look good.

oops, I forget to stop using the word "liberal."  I sometimes forget that in other parts of the world the term has a different meaning than it does in the USA.  At any rate, I'm referring to the democrats.

>>7
Kudos for the support, but D or R doesn't matter. One acts like war is the best policy, the other acts like the police-action is the best policy. And may both be damned. Republicans largely opposed Kosovo and Somalia, but were all peachy-keen in regards to Iraq. Up until '91, Democrats started every major war going back to the Civil War. They're both nothing but god damned war-hawks.

The only choice we really have is between socialized medicine and naked aggression or religious fanaticism and naked aggression. Choose your poison.

Ra! Ra! Ra!

Does anyone seriously expect Obama to depart from the Kerry-Edwards script of 2004?  I don't.  99% of the Republicans and 66% of the Democrats love this fucking war.  They love the military-industrial complex.  Just LOOK at how farcically that the Congress has pursued war profiteering and fraud.  They hold a few anemic hearings and then absolutely nothing is done (well, nothing except to eventually recall the auditors from Iraq!).

>>6

First of all Obama's policy isn't more radical than Bush's. All your fagitty 'liberal bashing' is fucking old. If you ranted as much about Bush's shit as you did Obama (who, btw, IS NOT THE FUCKING PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES) we probably wouldn't be in this mess.

And so "the libs" are guilty of whatever you accuse...SO THE FUCK WHAT? Even if you love the war, it's still been a fuck up of a war in the hands of "non-libs" or 'conservative' or whatever you call it. All you're doing is attacking the party you hate, you don't have any actual ideas or solutions.

So why don't you just do us all a favor "Mr. Know it all"...keep drinking your thalidomide and take your faggot ass back to sleep. You are NOT helping.

obama has the black vote.
which means there's going to be about a million new registered voters this year.

>>13
Yawn.

New idea.

Kill all new voters regardless of race, gender, creed, religion, etc. Most voters spend more time wondering about Paris Hilton than the excesses of the commerce clause. The abuse of the commerce clause. Most voters will never investigate the idea that Amendment XVI directly contradicts Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution. No one really cares. If that voter can get a welfare check or abort a baby / or get a welfare check ensure that no child is ever aborted, they don't care. They'll sell themselves down the river, sell the paddles and launch themselves into shit creek and they will never look back.

>>14
I agree.
You guys need to revolt.
think about it guys, if you can start shit, with all this tension in the air over the arctic you might be able to get russia to instigate a police action on the US. plus you would have mexico on your side, and all of south america to fall back to if your spastic CIA really does have the super weapons we all hear about.

nothings going to change while the dumb breed faster then the smart

>>15
I seriously doubt Russia's ability to project significant infantry power beyond their own borders. Their tanks are old, their bombers are older. The two good things they have going for them are the latest models of the MiG and Su.

And as for Russia's navy, I wonder if they could project power from St. Petersburg to Sweden. 

The CIA? Another hidden government agency that lives in the shadows.

>>12
"First of all Obama's policy isn't more radical than Bush's. "

See >>1.

>>17

I read the thread, it's just the policy isn't more radical. Even if you stretch subjective thought to the point where you can convince yourself Obama's policy is any worse...you'd STILL have to be a devoted retardee to not understand the "subtle" differences between the policies of a man who is not even in office and the policies of someone with actual power. You know, like, our PRESIDENT?

Or maybe I got it wrong. Maybe War and violence is what gets that's little wiener of yours engorged with blood. Maybe to you diplomacy is what you consider "radical". 

Any policy that doesn't involve getting the fuck out Iraq is merely a policy for achieving EPIC FAIL.  Saigon, anyone?  Or are you fucking queers too busy waving flags to notice?

GO OBAMA! INVADE PAKISTAN LOL! TIME TO TEACH THEM TOWLHEADS A LESSON!

>>20
I'm not sure if you're kidding or not, but I agree.

Pakistan, Iran, and North Korea should be nuked.

>>22
... and Texas

I find that bumping this thread is relevant to my interests.  Obama is still running for Prez, and that makes him FAIR GAME.

Obama should go nigger on everyone and start talking about putting a cap in bin Laden's ass.  Then he should dance and sing on stage while hawking fried chicken and watermelon.

>>25
Sadly, that still won't win him Florida.  Blacks still don't vote down there.  They've Jim Crow'd themselves.

>>26

Living in Florida myself, I will tell you they vote but they vote with extremely different agendas when they do, and it's usually for things they need (social programs). Dade is the nexus of identity politics in our state.

>>27
OK, I can understand that, but I was basing my assessment on the extremely lax fixing of the now infamous Bush-Harris purge list.  Even the NAACP was extremely slow to address the issue.

Could it be that all that are just symptoms of what you described?  For instance, does the NAACP have a vested interest in ensuring a certain set of Blacks remain blocked from voting?