2012 US Presidential Elections

Hahahaha .. Nice joke

There is a difference of heaven and hell between the two. He don't have to project anything. He is the most sincere candidate in the elections right now. And yes, the one with the vision and foresight, unlike mamata

Romney has the least possible chance of winning against Obama. He will lose against Obama with a high probability. If it's either one of them, US is doomed unfortunately

85 pc Indian-Americans support Obama for 2nd term: Survey - World News - IBNLive

Washington: The Indian-American community has come out in strong support of US President Barack Obama, who kicked off his re-election campaign with two rallies in Ohio and Virginia, with an overwhelming 85 per cent of them favouring a second term for him.

About 85 per cent of the Indian-Americans support Obama for a second term, according to a latest survey conducted by Lake Research Partners, a DC-based political consultancy firm, with APIAVote. APIA stands for Asian American Pacific Islander.

"President Obama was strongest among Indian-American voters, leading Mitt Romney by a margin of 76 to eight per cent in the poll, and weakest among Filipino Americans, where the vote was 57 per cent to 20 per cent. Among Chinese Americans, it was 68 per cent for Obama, 8 per cent for Romney," said Toby Chaudhuri, veteran strategist and chair of APIAVote.

The result of the survey conducted by Lake Research Partners is similar to that of India in New England, an ethnic Indian-American publication, which in an online survey in February had said that 80 per cent of the Indian-Americans support Obama against Romney.

According to the Lake Research Partners survey, Indian Americans have the highest favourable opinions of Obama as compared to other Asian-Americans.

More than half (51 per cent) have very favourable views on Obama, and 85 per cent overall have favourable views - compared to 34 per cent of Asian-Americans who hold very favourable views.

Indian-Americans are also more negative towards Mitt Romney, with 56 per cent having unfavourable views on him (44 per cent of Asian-Americans have unfavorable views).

Frankly, i would like to know why. After Obama became president, it is nothing but grief for Indian-American community. Obama administration harrased lots of Indians with visa and other issues. I am dead curious as to why they support him.

Indians are different from Indian-Americans.

Not sure which one is dumber than the other; depends upon whom you ask!

Dumb, Dumber, Dumbest!

85% of Indian Americans can't be dumb.

What it means is that we don't have enough info on what they favour him. Its stupid to consider that 85% of Indian Americans are stupid and don't understand what is good for them

Also, you have to differentiate between Indian American citizens and Indians who have migrated to the US. Indian Americans don't need visas to come and work to the US and that concern is just not on their list of issues

The author is Peter Bergen, one of the few guys who interviewed Osama and is a terrorism analyst for the CNN for the past decade or so. Apart from running a full fledged think tank that actually does some good work - the New American Foundation

And the highlighted parts in red and blue are based on facts not speculation so lets discuss the issues shall we

What do you think about Romney, McCain and Santorum's positions vs Obama on the OBL raid and strikes inside Pakistan for example? WE have what all these people said on record. So what who would you agree with?

I'll answer that if I may.

Obama gets his due credit, but you are forgetting the most important person, George Bush. His perseverance in continuing the fight in Afghanistan, all the investment related to setting up a support structure and intelligence network, had all set the stage for OBL's capture.

CNN and NY Times. Is there anything they don't know?

Wht good did Indian-Americans get from Democrats? Other than more and more taxes!!! Whether they are dumb or not , i don't know. But they sure are making a bad decision.

When Hillary Clinton was asked at La Martiniere College, Kolkata, if she would be a Presidential candidate in 2016, she smiled and said 'Don't get me in trouble!'

Well Bush started the "good" war which was basically sending some thousand+ special forces personnel to Afghanistan, bombing the day lights out of the Taliban and rearming the Northern Alliance to take over the country. There is credit due to him there.

But after 2002-03 what happened? He or more accurately Rumsfeld left Afghanistan to the war lords and didn't even nudge Pakistan on the terrorism issue. Any time there was a push to Pakistan, Musharraf would capture and showcase some level 2 or level 3 AQ operative and Bush would praise Musharraf as an important ally in the war on terror. At the same time, PakMil/ ISI got encourages by the US distraction in Iraq and started rebuilding the Taliban whereby we had a full fledged insurgency by 04-06.

Then we had the bumbling war in Iraq where all assets, satellites, intelligence was directed towards that region. The recent documentary on the Bin Laden clearly mentions that it was'nt until Obama giving his first CIA directive in 2008 that finding and capturing OBL is to be made the topmost priority of the CIA and that all necessary resources required would be provided.

If Bush had not been distracted by Iraq, kept a laser like focus on the Af-Pak region, and kept ISAF forces focussed on their mission in Afghanistan and rebuilding of Afghan security forces right from the beginning, we would have a working 350k ANSF forces well trained and ready by now. Even the ANSF targets and ideas of building this force were actually approved in 2009 by Obama. Imagine if this policy was in place back in 2002.

I would however, put more blame on Rumsfeld and his circle as they were the ones who pushed for this Karzai takes care of Kabul and the Warlords take care of rest of Afghanistan strategy. Even by 2007, there were only 20000+ troops on the ground.

Here is a very good article based on interviews with military and CIA personnel on how the Afghanistan war lost focus under the Bush administration as resources were plied into Iraq. It addresses most of what I have said with the facts and figures
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/12/wo...pagewanted=all

^^

Agree with you on Iraq, however, that is not what I intended to discuss. I was debating what you wrote w.r.t. OBL, and the contribution of Obama.

Had he not invaded Iraq (Maybe to continue what some hawks consider as his father's failure, a matter of family legacy for the Bush dynasty?)he would have captured OBL much earlier.