And McCain's running mate is...

[5,5]

Imo I think he chose her to draw in the Hilary voters which are mostly woment tbh, and most women will want the first ever women president becuase lets be honest, he will probably die by the end of his term.

McCain - Palin - 08

[alexxxxx]

The War on Terror has nothing to do with Iraq? Well lets see, before coalition forces entered Iraq in the North of Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi a leading Al-Qaeda figure was operating under the knowledge of, and with the permission of Saddam against the Kurds. And time and time again Iraq can be seen as a haven for a funder or terrorism. Are you to say that there is then no link between Iraq and terrorism? There may yet be no operational connection between Iraq and 9/11 but thats not what we are fighting.

We aren't just fighting those who have flown planes into buildings we are fighting those who wish to fly planes into the buildings of free democratic countries due to their hatred of that which is not Islamic and those who do not live under Shaaria law. The people that we fight now share the same desires and ideology. Iraq is most deffinately part of the war on terror and on top of that tactics we have learned in Iraq have helped us in places like Afghanistan.

As for Sarah Palin, don't buy into the fact that her family is off limits. When someone believes that teaching abstinence is the best way to prevent teenage pregnancy etc. then if her daugher gets pregnant by mistake then this is a brilliant example that the teaching of abstinence doesn't work.

The reason Iraq was invaded had nothing to do with the war on terrorism, but that they had non-existant Weapons of Mass Destruction which could have been used to attack other countries (noteably Israel). The terrorism 'link' with certain individuals/groups was either found or fabricated afterwards.

al-Zarqawi was Jordanian and the men who blew up the London Underground and Bus were Britsh, the men who planned on blowing up the planes over the atlantic were British.

These terrorist 'links' are cloaking the real reason why the Americans are going into these countries, which is because of their oil.

Sarah Palin was a decent choice only because of women. Feminists who care for nothing but what gender their candidates are will vote for him now - but it's sad to think that it's acceptable for anyone to vote for someone JUST because of their skin colour or gender. But as it is, American politics is about the candidate, little to do with the policies.

[HotelUser]

Many rumors around about this one, most of course unconfirmed of actually being true.

[Cypher-]

No offence to any americans here as this is solely a judgemental opinion and I know that I cant categorise everyone by a few people but Palin represents the kind of brash typical american persona that I despise, and I would guess that had her daughters pregnancy been kept under wraps then she might not have been very anti-abortion

Obama will change the world, not just America.

[Misawa]

Obama will change nothing with his Community Advisor experience... :rolleyes:

McCain will win.

[Splinter]

The reason Iraq was invaded had nothing to do with the war on terrorism, but that they had non-existant Weapons of Mass Destruction which could have been used to attack other countries (noteably Israel). The terrorism 'link' with certain individuals/groups was either found or fabricated afterwards.

al-Zarqawi was Jordanian and the men who blew up the London Underground and Bus were Britsh, the men who planned on blowing up the planes over the atlantic were British.

These terrorist 'links' are cloaking the real reason why the Americans are going into these countries, which is because of their oil.

Sarah Palin was a decent choice only because of women. Feminists who care for nothing but what gender their candidates are will vote for him now - but it's sad to think that it's acceptable for anyone to vote for someone JUST because of their skin colour or gender. But as it is, American politics is about the candidate, little to do with the policies.

Al-Zarqawi may have been Jordanian but he was operating out of Iraq under the knowledge of and with the support of Saddam Hussein. There are various other cases of this which just show Iraq to be a state which supported terrorism in exactly the same way as Afghanistan did. How can you say they are not linked?

Onto WMD's. We know Saddam possesed WMD's why since we had supplied them to him. Since 1991 weapons inspections had been forced on his regime but he never fully complied and we were never able to fully grasp his true weapons capacity. In 2001 he was trying to aquire a production line off of the North Koreans with the hope of creating a nuclear bomb but luckily the deal fell through. He was massively in breach of the nuclear proliferation treaty and the Security Council edict which gave permission to the US and UK government to carry out further inspections in Iraq also gave them the possibility of regime change if there was non compliance which there was.

As for oil? Well if you believe they went into the war solely for oil then presumably it was George Bush who led the war effort? This is nonsense. It was Tony Blair in 1999 in Chicago who told the US people that even after they had removed Milosevic they still had a more important meeting in Baghdad with Saddam. Regime change in Iraq was to remove a regime which by 2003 had lost any elements of its soverignty and to end the reign of a dictator who for too long we had lived alongside and tollerated and was now dangerous to us.

[alexxxxx]

Al-Zarqawi may have been Jordanian but he was operating out of Iraq under the knowledge of and with the support of Saddam Hussein. There are various other cases of this which just show Iraq to be a state which supported terrorism in exactly the same way as Afghanistan did. How can you say they are not linked?

We (British public) were lead to believe that Iraq possesed WMDs - which was the reason why we went to war.

Onto WMD's. We know Saddam possesed WMD's why since we had supplied them to him. Since 1991 weapons inspections had been forced on his regime but he never fully complied and we were never able to fully grasp his true weapons capacity. In 2001 he was trying to aquire a production line off of the North Koreans with the hope of creating a nuclear bomb but luckily the deal fell through. He was massively in breach of the nuclear proliferation treaty and the Security Council edict which gave permission to the US and UK government to carry out further inspections in Iraq also gave them the possibility of regime change if there was non compliance which there was.

The government lied to us. They said they KNEW he had some - and a dossier was drawn up saying where they were. For some reason Dr David Kelly - a contributor to this dossier 'commited suicide.'

As for oil? Well if you believe they went into the war solely for oil then presumably it was George Bush who led the war effort? This is nonsense. It was Tony Blair in 1999 in Chicago who told the US people that even after they had removed Milosevic they still had a more important meeting in Baghdad with Saddam. Regime change in Iraq was to remove a regime which by 2003 had lost any elements of its soverignty and to end the reign of a dictator who for too long we had lived alongside and tollerated and was now dangerous to us.

I'm not doubting that the British government isn't involved too. I'm up for a change in the USA that won't try and rely on the british to go with them, most people here in the UK I'd say are anti-war.

[Mrs.McCall]

I think this is going to be hard to call. Both campaigns are gaining momentum.

The addition of Sarah Palin has given the Republicans a lot of attention and like they say no press is bad press!

It's weird, I am a Democrat but I find Sarah Palin to be very interesting indeed.

[Frodo13.]

This is how I see things: McCain picks Palin to gain the Clinton vote, who were mostly women and wanted nothing more then to see a women in the White House. So, they vote McCain as a huge slap in the face to Barack Obama for beating Clinton in the primaries. McCain wins the election, which then paves the way for Clinton to run again in 2012. By this point, the American public are totaly sick of the Republicans, so vote in Clinton some four years late.

I think Clinton could of easily won an election, where for Obama it is proving a little more difficult.

[alexxxxx]

This is how I see things: McCain picks Palin to gain the Clinton vote, who were mostly women and wanted nothing more then to see a women in the White House. So, they vote McCain as a huge slap in the face to Barack Obama for beating Clinton in the primaries. McCain wins the election, which then paves the way for Clinton to run again in 2012. By this point, the American public are totaly sick of the Republicans, so vote in Clinton some four years late.

I think Clinton could of easily won an election, where for Obama it is proving a little more difficult.

I'd say that is a likely outcome.