Biggest Issues for 2008 Candidates

There’s going to be a lot on people’s minds come November 2008, but which of the big issues is going to be most important to you as a voter? Which candidate do you think would be best for the particular issue you feel most strongly about?

What will be the biggest? Iraq.

I voted other because I think it's a toss between National Security and the Iraq Civil War

i would say the iraq war will be dealt with first. with the economy coming in second

You messed up the poll.

By having the war in Iraq and the War on Terror as seperate issues.

We're fighting Al-Queda and Iran over there too, don't forget.

Theyre stance on the war will outweigh any of the domestic shit in next year's election.

And of course, personality always matters.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
You messed up the poll.

By having the war in Iraq and the War on Terror as separate issues.

The Civil War in Iraq has nothing to do with the War on Terror.

Originally posted by Strangelove
They are separate issues 🙄

The Civil War in Iraq has nothing to do with the War on Terror.

So we are not fighting Al-Quieda insurgents and Iranian fighters there?

If we lose the war in Iraq, we will gain a state that is controlled and run by islamic militant radicals who want to attack us and our interests.

I'd say that makes it part of the War on Terror.

Now I'm not connecting Saddam and 9/11, so don't take it that way.

But the War on Terror (read: war on Radical Islam) isn't just against Al-Queida.

It's against any radical group with stated or demonstrated intentions of harming the U.S. or it's interests.

Saddam may or may not have fit into that category, but he was certainly what we'd call "a terrorist", mustard gassing his own people and whatnot. Killing those who opposed him.

The War on Terror means: putting a stop to anybody that would hurt us, or stopping them from being able to. Or pre-emptively preventing them from planning it. Or assisting a nation or group in such activities.

Now I'm not saying that I believe such a broad and massive policy will work, but looking at the War on Terror as defined, Iraq certainly falls into that category.

What's important is Education and Healthcare. All the others are just fluff.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
So we are not fighting Al-Quieda insurgents and Iranian fighters there?

If we lose the war in Iraq, we will gain a state that is controlled and run by islamic militant radicals who want to attack us and our interests.

I'd say that makes it part of the War on Terror.

Now I'm not connecting Saddam and 9/11, so don't take it that way.

But the War on Terror (read: war on Radical Islam) isn't just against Al-Queida.

It's against any radical group with stated or demonstrated intentions of harming the U.S. or it's interests.

Saddam may or may not have fit into that category, but he was certainly what we'd call "a terrorist", mustard gassing his own people and whatnot. Killing those who opposed him.

The War on Terror means: putting a stop to anybody that would hurt us, or stopping them from being able to. Or pre-emptively preventing them from planning it. Or assisting a nation or group in such activities.

Now I'm not saying that I believe such a broad and massive policy will work, but looking at the War on Terror as defined, Iraq certainly falls into that category.

I agree that Saddam Hussein was a authoritarian dictator who needed to be stopped, but under American occupation, Iraqis are actually worse off than they were under Hussein. He had no WMDs. He was not an imminent threat. As horrible as it sounds, I would rather have a smaller amount of Iraqis killed by a ruthless dictator than by the hundreds of thousands as collateral damage in a bungled police action.

We should get back to the actual War on Terror (al-Qaeda, the Taliban, Osama bin Laden) in Afghanistan (which has almost completely reverted to Taliban control due to our 'distraction' in Iraq), and find the actual mastermind of the 9/11 attacks.

We should train the Iraqi army and police and then GTFO

Originally posted by Strangelove
The characterization of The Iraqi Civil War as the "central front in the War on Terror" is bullshit. Iraq was an arbitrary preemptive war conducted with faulty intelligence.

I agree that Saddam Hussein was a authoritarian dictator who needed to be stopped, but under American occupation, Iraqis are actually worse off than they were under Hussein. He had no WMDs. He was not an imminent threat. As horrible as it sounds, I would rather have a smaller amount of Iraqis killed by a ruthless dictator than by the hundreds of thousands as collateral damage in a bungled police action.

We should get back to the actual War on Terror (al-Qaeda, the Taliban, Osama bin Laden) in Afghanistan (which has almost completely reverted to Taliban control due to our 'distraction' in Iraq), and find the actual mastermind of the 9/11 attacks.

We should train the Iraqi army and police and then GTFO

Wow, a post that I 100% agree with.

Either I'm getting smarter, or you must be getting dumber, eh? 😛

Except that The War on Terror is just with al-Qaeda and Afghanistan, but that's a small matter. And that whether we like it or not, Iraq IS NOW part of the war on terror, because we can't let terrorists get ahold of it. 😬

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Except that The War on Terror is just with al-Qaeda and Afghanistan, but that's a small matter. And that whether we like it or not, Iraq IS NOW part of the war on terror, because we can't let terrorists get ahold of it. 😬

And I mentioned training the Iraq army and police for the express reason that I would not want Iraq in the hands of terrorists either.

Wow, a post that I 100% agree with.

Either I'm getting smarter, or you must be getting dumber, eh? 😛

Originally posted by Strangelove
I'm not saying that the War on Terror is limited to al-Qaeda or Afghanistan, but that's why we started it in the first place, so why ignore it in favor of a mistake of our own making?

And I mentioned training the Iraq army and police for the express reason that I would not want Iraq in the hands of terrorists either.
I guess I'm just more practical than you thought 😉

Darn it, stop that.

Now we really agree on the issue. 😒:

Ah well.

Abortion, then? 😛

*bicker bicker, argue argue, questioning character, & so on and so forth* 😄

Originally posted by sithsaber408
You messed up the poll.

By having the war in Iraq and the War on Terror as seperate issues.

We're fighting Al-Queda and Iran over there too, don't forget.

Actually, according to the US military, its mostly insugent groups, not Al-Queda. Besides, Al-queda wasn't in Iraq until we let them in.

Nice try diverting from reall issues though.

Originally posted by Alliance
Actually, according to the US military, its mostly insugent groups, not Al-Queda. Besides, Al-queda wasn't in Iraq until we let them in.

Nice try diverting from reall issues though.

Was just clarifying, that's all.

Whether it started that way or not, Iraq IS NOW part of the war on terror, as we can't let it fall to radical Islamic groups.

^^^^See above discussion for further details. 😛

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Was just clarifying, that's all.

Whether it started that way or not, Iraq IS NOW part of the war on terror, as we can't let it fall to radical Islamic groups.

^^^^See above discussion for further details. 😛

Perhaps we can invade more nations to spread the War of Terror?

We'll just stay in Iraq forever then. Make it our colony.

I hope not. 🙁

My cousin's over there fighting now.

So are people I know.

Iraq has not ever been, nor ever will be, part of the war on Terror. However, it will be the cause of future attacks against the US.

Likely so. American involvement in the Iraqi Civil War that we helped start is causing a significant anti-American sentiment throughout the Middle East.