Another cold war with Russia: Obama's response?

[Wotan31]

- A leading General in the Russian Army stated that if the USA installed defensive missiles in Poland , it would be provocation worthy of a Russian nuclear attack on Poland .
- Gorbachev stated that he felt that a new cold war was developing.
- This is a few days after Russia invaded Georgia , shockingly reminiscent of Hitler's occupation of the Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia in 1939.

The attached link below tells us what Obama plans to do to defend freedom.
This video does not tell us what Obama is "reported" to have said; this shows him saying it!
This is an uninterrupted 51-second video of Obama speaking; he's telling us exactly what he will do to the military...watch video before it is removed off the web site.

Peace in our times? Unilateral disarmament ?... Wake-up Obama, your complete lack of leadership experience is painfully obvious:

http://macsmind.com/wordpress/2008/06/08/obama-wants-to-protect-america/

[BoyBach]

Heaven forbid that the President of the USA have an intelligent and nuanced foreign policy or that he'd want to end the military-industrial complex. :rolleyes:

[Wotan31]

Threat of nuclear war? Lets dismantle all the weapons!! Hooray!! And everyone else will do the same, right? Right?? :rolleyes:

There's a distinct difference between a nuanced foreign policy, and a clueless foreign policy.

[NT1440]

:confused: i havnt seen the problem.

so he doesnt like rushing into war, and wants to get rid of nukes, OH GOD NO!:rolleyes:

trying to reach peace with negotiation instead of turning the world against us with bully tactics is a bad thing......how?

[mkrishnan]

There's a distinct difference between a nuanced foreign policy, and a clueless foreign policy.

Is "find more, use less" an example of a nuanced policy? :p

Meh, I say, let the Russians have Georgia. Atlanta is a fun town, but we'll still have New Orleans.

[GorillaPaws]

Do you really think there's a military solution to nuclear war? The only possible outcome is mutually assured destruction which creates a stalemate environment such that no country wants to fire the first shot. In this scenario, building up more nuclear weapons is an act of frivolity and a gross misappropriation of our nation's wealth, especially when we're essentially charging it to the national credit card for my generation to pay off long after the baby boomers are dead. It's a pretty sweet deal if you're over the hill but it kind of sucks if you're not even 30.

Besides, how are we supposed to flex our muscles if we're fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan, "bomb-bomb-bombing Iran" and any other potential foreign policy issues that may arise. Furthermore, how is a "hockey-mom" supposed to play hardball with guys like Putin should McCain not finish out his term. I'm sorry to say, but the Republican tactics of "going it alone" isn't going to work as we keep spreading ourselves thinner and thinner, unless you want to bring back the draft...

[Wotan31]

Heaven forbid that the President of the USA have an intelligent and nuanced foreign policy or that he'd want to end the military-industrial complex. :rolleyes:
Let me rephrase my earlier comment: "There's a difference between a nuanced foreign policy, and bending over and spreading your arse cheeks" Sticking your head in the sand doesn't make a problem go away. ;)
:confused: i havnt seen the problem.Try reading the news. ;)
so he doesnt like rushing into war, and wants to get rid of nukes, OH GOD NO! ... trying to reach peace with negotiation
Peace through negotiation is a wonderful thing. Ever heard the phrase "Speak softly and carry a big stick"? Just because you have weapons doesn't mean you use them. Mere possession is an effective deterrent.

Why do you think every major city in the US that instituted gun-ban laws, saw an immediate rise in violent crime after the laws took effect? When the bad guys know that "you ain't got one", they're not afraid to push you around. Same concept.


Meh, I say, let the Russians have Georgia. Atlanta is a fun town, but we'll still have New Orleans.
LMAO too true, nothing but a big airport and a lot of traffic in Atlanta! :p

[Wotan31]

Besides, how are we supposed to flex our muscles if we're fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan, "bomb-bomb-bombing Iran" and any other potential foreign policy issues that may arise. Furthermore, how is a "hockey-mom" supposed to play hardball with guys like Putin should McCain not finish out his term. I'm sorry to say, but the Republican tactics of "going it alone" isn't going to work as we keep spreading ourselves thinner and thinner, unless you want to bring back the draft...
I guess you haven't been reading the news? Negotiations are currently underway with the Iraqi government, to withdraw all combat troops from Iraq before the end of next year. This agreement will likely be solidified before the next president even takes office. Although I'm sure Obama will be eager to take credit for "ending the war" should he be elected. :rolleyes:

And if you think "hockey mom" can't play hard ball, what do you expect Obama to do? I agree that she doesn't have much experience - but Obama has even less! Now that's frightening. :eek:

[Cursor]

I totally agree with what Obama just stated. Seriously, what is so wrong with trying to achieve peace? Trying to rid the world of the most dangerous weapons? I see nothing wrong with that.

We have become such a war-mongering nation. Why should our society be in a constant state of fear? Commies, Cold War, Terrorists? I say they are all a fabrication to keep the will of the people down. Peace=true prosperity. War=powerful, corrupt government practices.

We are NOT a nation at war. Our government just wants you to THINK we are, so they can rule with a heavy fist.

[Wotan31]

I totally agree with what Obama just stated. Seriously, what is so wrong with trying to achieve peace? Trying to rid the world of the most dangerous weapons? I see nothing wrong with that.

We have become such a war-mongering nation. Why should our society be in a constant state of fear? Commies, Cold War, Terrorists? I say they are all a fabrication to keep the will of the people down. Peace=true prosperity. War=powerful, corrupt government practices.

We are NOT a nation at war. Our government just wants you to THINK we are, so they can rule with a heavy fist.
I know, I know. And area 51 is full of space aliens, Elvis is still alive, and that half-baby-half-octopus mutant on the cover of all the tabloids is real - but the government doesn't want you to know. It's a conspiracy I tell you!!! Don't forget to put on your tin foil hat before you go to bed or they'll read your brain all night long and you'll be late for school tomorrow. ;)

[OutThere]

I agree that she doesn't have much experience - but Obama has even less! And he shows it at every turn. Now that's frightening. :eek:

Oh please. Are you ********** kidding me? Obama has less experience than miss redneck from nowheresville? http://www.drien.com/macrumors/random/gonemad.gif

[Sky Blue]

Oh please. Are you ********** kidding me? Obama has less experience than miss redneck from nowheresville? http://www.drien.com/macrumors/random/gonemad.gif

Hey, come on now. She's from Alaska. That's right up there next to Russia.

[Wotan31]

Oh please. Are you ********** kidding me? Obama has less experience than miss redneck from nowheresville? http://www.drien.com/macrumors/random/gonemad.gif
Sorry to break the news to you, but yes, far less. Maybe do a little homework next time before choosing your vote. Obama has what, a couple years or so as a Senator-but-not-really-cause-he's-been-campaigning-the-whole-time?

I don't like the idea of Senators-turned-President to begin with. A Senator isn't in charge. A senator isn't responsible for the functioning of a large organization. A Presidential candidate should have experience running some large organization. Like a CEO of a Fortune 500 company, or, I dunno, like Governor of a state.

Being a Governor who was active and in office for a few years counts as far, far more experience than being an absentee senator. Plus even in the short time she's been in office, she lowered taxes, cut spending, and balanced the budget. The only thing Obama has experience in, is campaigning for office.

And we're comparing apples and oranges here anyways. Palin is running for 2nd in command. Mr. Inexperience, oops, I mean Obama is running for the Oval Office.

Sorry, Obama, but to get my vote, you need at least a little bit of experience, and half of a clue - and you've shown yourself to have neither.

[BoyBach]

I don't like the idea of Senators-turned-President to begin with. A Senator isn't in charge. A senator isn't responsible for the functioning of a large organization. A Presidential candidate should have experience running some large organization. Like a CEO of a Fortune 500 company, or, I dunno, like Governor of a state.


So how can you support Senator John McCain?

[yg17]

John McCain doesn't have a single day of executive experience either.

[GorillaPaws]

And we're comparing apples and oranges here anyways. Palin is running for 2nd in command. Mr. Inexperience, oops, I mean Obama is running for the Oval Office.

Except the "apple" this "orange" would replace has been on the tree way too long and has cancer. The odds that Palin would need to step in is MUCH higher than if McCain was 10-20 years younger and not plagued by melanoma. I think Obama is capable of channeling his inner Chuck Norris, you seriously can't picturing him talking tough with foreign leaders? I agree that he doesn't have the same experience as McCain in foreign affairs, but I think his attitude towards diplomacy is more rational and has the potential to save us a LOT of money down the road.

[Wotan31]

John McCain doesn't have a single day of executive experience either.
Of course, and make no mistake, I'm not happy about that either - but the ballot is between two senators, so we have no other choice here.

He does however have far more political experience, having held many more offices and government positions, and for a much longer period of time, making him much better equipped than the n00b.

[MacHipster]

So how can you support Senator John McCain?

John McCain doesn't have a single day of executive experience either.

I can't wait for the OP's answer to this.

Of course, and make no mistake, I'm not happy about that either - but the ballot is between two senators, so we have no other choice here.

He does however have far more political experience, having held many more offices and government positions, and for a much longer period of time, making him much better equipped than the n00b.

So, it's a non-issue then. Now that this is off the table, you claim that sitting on a city council of a small town for 4 years, being the mayor of the same small town for 8 years, and Governor of a state with the population 1/5 of Chicago is "far more experience" than being a State Senator for 7 years and a Federal senator for 2? In other words, being in office for a whopping 5 years is "far more experience"?

[yg17]

George Bush had political experience (and executive experience to boot) and look at how badly he ******** this country up.

[Wotan31]

Except the "apple" this "orange" would replace has been on the tree way too long and has cancer. The odds that Palin would need to step in is MUCH higher than if McCain was 10-20 years younger and not plagued by melanoma. I think Obama is capable of channeling his inner Chuck Norris, you seriously can't picturing him talking tough with foreign leaders? I agree that he doesn't have the same experience as McCain in foreign affairs, but I think his attitude towards diplomacy is more rational and has the potential to save us a LOT of money down the road.
Yes, I agree that's a distinct possibility, unfortunate as it is. "Channeling his inner Chuck Norris" lol nice phrase, I like that one. ;) I don't doubt that Obama could "talk tough", on the contrary, I think he's capable enough of that. I just don't think he has anywhere near enough experience to be saying the right things. He has good intentions, that I can see, but I think he's misguided in quite a few areas.

For example, you and I both know he's going to raise taxes as soon as (if) he gets into office. Now believe me when I say this - that will screw our economy and make it sour even further. When taxes go up, people liquidate assets - fact. Stocks will be sold, houses will be sold, and in this already soft market, it will surely spiral into recession.

Now this raising of taxes is I think in earnest, he wants to reduce national debt, etc. but the timing is all wrong, and he won't see that due to his inexperience.

This one reason alone is why many of my typically Democrat-voting friends (who are in the financial industry) are voting for McCain. Trust me, they don't like it ;) but their livelihood very much depends on it. Mortgage brokers and investment bankers and portfolio managers all lose their jobs when the economy goes into a full-on recession - and that's what they all believe Obama will cause (despite their firm democrat-voting records!!)

[Wotan31]

I can't wait for the OP's answer to this.
You missed it. Post #17. ;)

[Sky Blue]

For example, you and I both know he's going to raise taxes as soon as (if) he gets into office.

Do you know his tax plans or are you just reciting FUD? I know I'd be taxed more under McCain than Obama.

[Wotan31]

Do you know his tax plans or are you just reciting FUD? I know I'd be taxed more under McCain than Obama.
Read my post #20 again (I just made a bunch of edits). I have many friends in the financial industry who do things like mortgage brokering, asset management, etc. and being the financial geeks they are ;) they've poured through both candidates economic plans. And even though some of these guys are hard-core dems (like I know many of you mac folk are), Obama's plan scares them enough that they're voting for McCain. Voting Red is a first for some of them, and yes, I'm enjoying giving them a hard time over it! :D

I'm not talking only about personal income tax, but rather all the taxes are levied against individuals. Real estate taxes, capital gains taxes, etc. Obama wants to increase taxes on the wealthy - if there's a date on the calendar when capital gains tax goes up by a large amount, you better believe there's going to be a MASSIVE stock sell off. Same with real estate. That's bad news, real bad. The markets will plummet to new lows, it'll be like the tech bubble bursting all over again, only worse.

[zap2]

Of course, and make no mistake, I'm not happy about that either - but the ballot is between two senators, so we have no other choice here.

He does however have far more political experience, having held many more offices and government positions, and for a much longer period of time, making him much better equipped than the n00b.

Then why attack Obama on being a senator?

Look hear it is very simply, no job, save Prime Minister, President, etc of another country which no one running has, can get you ready 100% for the job.

Obama led communities, was in the Illinois senate, and the US senate, sure he hasn't done it as much as McCain, but he knows how to lead. Heck he's got a better idea of foreign policy then McCain. Experience is only as good as the lessons it has taught you, and McCain missed some of those lessons. Obama is talking sense and logic on how to deal with Iran, Iraqi, etc...while McCain is doing the stuff that clearly failed in the last 8 years.

As for your claim that "Obama doesn't have a clue", thats ridiculous. He's run a great campaign, pushed politics to a level where the things that matter are the stance on issues facing America, and has brought a ton of new people into caring about politics.

But anytime McCain wants to focus on issues, Obama will be ready. Obama is gonna show in a debate, that he has strong stances on issues, including ones McCain loves to say he has a lead on(international policy)

Also, I think you're missing Obama's plan with nukes, he doesn't plan to over night get rid of them, he wants to slowly do it, as other counties agree to it. Its not a "lets hope they do", its a "let's work with counties to saves lives, by decreasing nukes worldwide, by stepping up to do them same here at home"

[MacHipster]

For example, you and I both know he's going to raise taxes as soon as (if) he gets into office. Now believe me when I say this - that will screw our economy and make it sour even further. When taxes go up, people liquidate assets - fact. Stocks will be sold, houses will be sold, and in this already soft market, it will surely spiral into recession.

Now this raising of taxes is I think in earnest, he wants to reduce national debt, etc. but the timing is all wrong, and he won't see that due to his inexperience.

This one reason alone is why many of my typically Democrat-voting friends (who are in the financial industry) are voting for McCain. Trust me, they don't like it ;) but their livelihood very much depends on it. Mortgage brokers and investment bankers and portfolio managers all lose their jobs when the economy goes into a full-on recession - and that's what they all believe Obama will cause (despite their firm democrat-voting records!!)

Yes, he wants to roll back the tax cuts for the top 2% of the country that hold 80% of the wealth and give tax cuts for the 98% of us that hold 20% of the wealth. Boo hoo. I guess the rich won't be able to buy their third yacht with their refunds.

You missed it. Post #17. ;)

No, in fact I responded to it. But I suppose your post selection skills are as apt as your political arguments.

[Iscariot]

Threat of nuclear war? Lets dismantle all the weapons!! Hooray!! And everyone else will do the same, right? Right?? :rolleyes:

There's a distinct difference between a nuanced foreign policy, and a clueless foreign policy.

Hang on a second. You honestly believe that Obama will somehow magically be able to dismantle all 10 000 active warheads and 4 000 inactive reserve warheads in 8 years? Do you believe that 14 000 nuclear warheads is a reasonable amount? That's about 70 warheads for every nation on Earth.

[Wotan31]

Then why attack Obama on being a senator?

Look hear it is very simply, no job, save Prime Minister, President, etc of another country which no one running has, can get you ready 100% for the job.

I'm not attacking Obama for being a Senator. I'm criticizing him for taking credit for being a senator - even though he's been on the campaign trail for the entire time. When you're campaigning for president, it's a 110% full time job. The term I used was "absentee senator".

And I agree that it's completely impossible to be 100% ready for the job. Completely impossible. But having decades of military, local, and state government experience is a huge asset. Huge.

Having been personally responsible for leading a massive organization i.e. fortune 500 company or governor of a state is better IMO, but we don't have that option on the ballot.

No candidate has a crystal ball telling them the future, but choosing between two candidates, one having little to no experience, and one having far more, I'm much more comfortable with the old guy. ;)

Obama led communities, was in the Illinois senate, and the US senate, sure he hasn't done it as much as McCain, but he knows how to lead. Heck he's got a better idea of foreign policy then McCain. Experience is only as good as the lessons it has taught you, and McCain missed some of those lessons. Obama is talking sense and logic on how to deal with Iran, Iraqi, etc...while McCain is doing the stuff that clearly failed in the last 8 years.
LOL! Are you spewing TV hype or is this an opinion you formed based on fact? I think it's the former. Give me real examples, not more meaningless hype. Here's an example that runs contrary to all your assertions:

Remember the "troop surge" that was being discussed for Iraq a few months ago? In the vote for that, Obama of course voted against it. McCain voted for it.

As it turns out, the troop surge was smashingly successful at quelling the violence, and troop causalities dropped to record lows. Intelligence reports shows that Al Qaeda in Iraq was virtually incapacitated. The Iraqi government met nearly all of their timetable objectives that were set out for them.

Search on youtube for the clip, but Obama said publicity that this was the result that he predicted. Eh? Excuse me? Then why did you vote against it?! :confused:

So is that your idea of "sense and logic" from Obama? I hope not. :eek:

As for your claim that "Obama doesn't have a clue", thats ridiculous. He's run a great campaign, pushed politics to a level where the things that matter are the stance on issues facing America, and has brought a ton of new people into caring about politics.
LOL His campaign manager has run a great campaign. That guy should get an award. He's done nothing revolutionary as part of his campaign as you suggest. He is I think the 13th or 14th presidential candidate to run under the banner of "Change". Did you know that?

[Wotan31]

No, in fact I responded to it. But I suppose your post selection skills are as apt as your political arguments.
LOL! Getting a little hot under the collar? No need for personal attacks here on the forums, I believe that's against the rules. Can you not have a civil discussion? :confused: I'm sad for you.

[Wotan31]

Hang on a second. You honestly believe that Obama will somehow magically be able to dismantle all 10 000 active warheads and 4 000 inactive reserve warheads in 8 years?
No - but he does. Inexperience rearing its ugly head again.

[OutThere]

Sorry to break the news to you, but yes, far less. Maybe do a little homework next time before choosing your vote. Obama has what, a couple years or so as a Senator-but-not-really-cause-he's-been-campaigning-the-whole-time?

I don't like the idea of Senators-turned-President to begin with. A Senator isn't in charge. A senator isn't responsible for the functioning of a large organization. A Presidential candidate should have experience running some large organization. Like a CEO of a Fortune 500 company, or, I dunno, like Governor of a state.

Being a Governor who was active and in office for a few years counts as far, far more experience than being an absentee senator. Plus even in the short time she's been in office, she lowered taxes, cut spending, and balanced the budget. The only thing Obama has experience in, is campaigning for office.

And we're comparing apples and oranges here anyways. Palin is running for 2nd in command. Mr. Inexperience, oops, I mean Obama is running for the Oval Office.

Sorry, Obama, but to get my vote, you need at least a little bit of experience, and half of a clue - and you've shown yourself to have neither.

So, it's a non-issue then. Now that this is off the table, you claim that sitting on a city council of a small town for 4 years, being the mayor of the same small town for 8 years, and Governor of a state with the population 1/5 of Chicago is "far more experience" than being a State Senator for 7 years and a Federal senator for 2? In other words, being in office for a whopping 5 years is "far more experience"?

Thanks, you put that as well as I could have.

It honestly blows my mind that someone can really believe that serving on the city council and as mayor of a town of 5,000 in Alaska is better experience than being a state and national senator. I grew up in and still live in a town of 4,000 people. In absolutely no way whatsoever would I want our first selectman to be vice president, even if he became governor for two years beforehand. The issues a mayor has to deal with in a small town like that are a joke...in recent memory our selectman has dealt with such groundbreaking issues as a new cell tower being built and finding a new site for the town garbage transfer station.

Simply put, the scale of what Palin has faced (namely small town and small, disconnected state) is a joke next to Obama's large state and national work.

[Ugg]

Of course, and make no mistake, I'm not happy about that either - but the ballot is between two senators, so we have no other choice here.

He does however have far more political experience, having held many more offices and government positions, and for a much longer period of time, making him much better equipped than the n00b.

His time with the good ole boys in AZ doesn't count. Is anyone really taking him seriously?

[BoyBach]

It honestly blows my mind that someone can really believe that serving on the city council and as mayor of a town of 5,000...


You forgot to add that she was told to employ a city administrator to help her run the town by "party power-brokers after she had gotten herself into some trouble over precipitous firings" and left with the town $22 million in debt. (http://www.crosscut.com/politics-government/17341/About+Sarah+Palin:+an+e-mail+from+Wasilla/).

[Wotan31]

It honestly blows my mind that someone can really believe that serving on the city council and as mayor of a town of 5,000 in Alaska is better experience than being a state and national senator. I grew up in and still live in a town of 4,000 people. In absolutely no way whatsoever would I want our first selectman to be vice president, even if he became governor for two years beforehand. The issues a mayor has to deal with in a small town like that are a joke...in recent memory our selectman has dealt with such groundbreaking issues as a new cell tower being built and finding a new site for the town garbage transfer station.

So we should put the guy in the oval office who has very little experience - instead of putting the guy in the oval office who's VP running mate has little experience? Eh?

His time with the good ole boys in AZ doesn't count. Is anyone really taking him seriously?
And Obama's time as Senator-but-not-really doesn't count. Is anyone really taking him seriously?

I just love all this empty hype! So consistent with the whole Obama campaign.

G'night folks, I got work in the AM! See you tomorrow! :D

[walangij]

LOL! Are you spewing TV hype or is this an opinion you formed based on fact? I think it's the former. Give me real examples, not more meaningless hype. Here's an example that runs contrary to all your assertions:

Remember the "troop surge" that was being discussed for Iraq a few months ago? In the vote for that, Obama of course voted against it. McCain voted for it.

As it turns out, the troop surge was smashingly successful at quelling the violence, and troop causalities dropped to record lows. Intelligence reports shows that Al Qaeda in Iraq was virtually incapacitated. The Iraqi government met nearly all of their timetable objectives that were set out for them.

Search on youtube for the clip, but Obama said publicity that this was the result that he predicted. Eh? Excuse me? Then why did you vote against it?! :confused:

So is that your idea of "sense and logic" from Obama? I hope not. :eek:


LOL His campaign manager has run a great campaign. That guy should get an award. He's done nothing revolutionary as part of his campaign as you suggest. He is I think the 13th or 14th presidential candidate to run under the banner of "Change". Did you know that?


You can't accuse others of spewing democratic talking points when you rebuttal them with the republican talking points. I hate this kind of discourse, no one tries to understand the other side, instead they just attack each other for not "getting it".


Anyways, to get on point, all that is happening is a result of the war in Iraq. Pretty big assertion isn't it? Well, if we weren't occupied with Iraq, we would've been able to completely destroy the Taliban and radicals in the mountains between Pakistan and Afghanistan. We would've had more international support for our endeavors at going after terrorists. And because of this, we would've resorted to multilateral diplomacy with Iraq first, which may have worked. If it didn't, and there was still "actionable intelligence", a multinational force would likely have been involved and invested in the war in Iraq.

You will not believe how many people I've talked to (friends from Europe/Asia) who were so disappointed and surprised that the USA would invade Iraq in the way that it did. That transformed our image abroad, seriously. The moral high ground was lost.

You can't say that diplomacy would never work, people said that Kim Jong Il would never come around (of course things aren't perfect there currently, but they are tremendously better than they were years ago).

But since we were so occupied with the war in Iraq, we were busy and allowed Russia to do whatever Putin wants. And so we have the situation we have now.

Reading the comments from your link are sickening. The nature of discourse in our country is poisoned. I would like to think that those posting on the web do not reflect the general population. But I know that is not true.:(

[MacHipster]

LOL! Getting a little hot under the collar? No need for personal attacks here on the forums, I believe that's against the rules. Can you not have a civil discussion? :confused: I'm sad for you.

No, I'm pointing out your selective use of information in support of your arguments. So far you've said: that you'll vote against Obama because he's just been a senator and then said it was okay that McCain is a senator; that Palin has "far more experience" than Obama even though those whopping 5 more years have been spent as a city council member; that Obama will raise taxes without mentioning it's only to the 2% of the population that have 80% of the nation's wealth and omitting that he's lowering taxes for 98% of the population; and now your claiming that the surge is the sole reason for the declining violence in Iraq, omitting the Anbar Awakening as well as the Sadr ceasefire that occurred before the surge even happenned. You are as liberal with your facts as I am in my politics.

[Iscariot]

No - but he does. Inexperience rearing its ugly head again.

Or you're knowingly taking his comments out of context and to the extreme. I don't suppose you have a link to a statement by him that he would reduce American nuclear weapons to zero?

[BoyBach]

You are as liberal with your facts as I am in my politics.


I approve of that line. :D

[Wotan31]

And because of this, we would've resorted to multilateral diplomacy with Iraq first, which may have worked. If it didn't, and there was still "actionable intelligence", a multinational force would likely have been involved and invested in the war in Iraq.
International diplomacy, you mean like the years and years of talks that led up to numerous UN resolutions, which were promptly ignored?

And "actionable intelligence" that led up to a multinational investigative force - oh, like the UN weapons inspectors - who were denied access to numerous facilities and then kicked out altogether?

You can't make an argument that ignores the facts...

Reading the comments from your link are sickening. The nature of discourse in our country is poisoned. I would like to think that those posting on the web do not reflect the general population. But I know that is not true.:(

Quite frankly, I didn't read them. I find most commentary attached to political internet articles is sickening. From ALL angles of the political spectrum. It's amazing how quickly people turn to animals behind the anonymity of the internet - I'm talking about both "Blue" and "Red" (for lack of a better term) internet users here.

Hopefully we can keep things civil here at least. I'm making an effort and clearly so are you. Thank you! Lets keep it up and continue this intelligent discussion / debate. :) It's not fun any more when the discussion degrades into personal attacks, foul language, etc. like it does so often on other sites. :(

Ok, now I'm logging off for the evening, for real this time!

[GorillaPaws]

For example, you and I both know he's going to raise taxes as soon as (if) he gets into office. Now believe me when I say this - that will screw our economy and make it sour even further. When taxes go up, people liquidate assets - fact. Stocks will be sold, houses will be sold, and in this already soft market, it will surely spiral into recession.

Now this raising of taxes is I think in earnest, he wants to reduce national debt, etc. but the timing is all wrong, and he won't see that due to his inexperience.

This one reason alone is why many of my typically Democrat-voting friends (who are in the financial industry) are voting for McCain. Trust me, they don't like it ;) but their livelihood very much depends on it. Mortgage brokers and investment bankers and portfolio managers all lose their jobs when the economy goes into a full-on recession - and that's what they all believe Obama will cause (despite their firm democrat-voting records!!)

I thought it was the Republican party who was all about cutting costs? But here you imply that we should be investing billions in a renewed arms race with Russia?

Lately, the Republican party wants to cut taxes and then increase spending and putting that trillions of dollar difference on your grandkids national credit card. When we had the surplus, instead of making our first payment in decades, we got a tax cut. Imagine running your household like that. Picture being negative every month and then finally getting more than you spent one month but instead of making a payment on that credit card, you had a night on the town. Now imagine that your credit score transfered to your kids and grandkids (nice legacy to leave them with).

How can you possibly talk about fiscal responsibility when the Republican party has nearly doubled the national debt since Bush took office? The same thing happened under Reagan too.

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt.htm has some good statistics. This chart does a good job of showing what I'm talking about too.

http://www.lafn.org/politics/gvdc/Natl_Debt_Chart_2006.gif

[walangij]

Quite frankly, I didn't read them. I find most commentary attached to political internet articles is sickening. From ALL angles of the political spectrum. It's amazing how quickly people turn to animals behind the anonymity of the internet - I'm talking about both "Blue" and "Red" (for lack of a better term) internet users here.

Hopefully we can keep things civil here at least. I'm making an effort and clearly so are you. Thank you! Lets keep it up and continue this intelligent discussion / debate. :) It's not fun any more when the discussion degrades into personal attacks, foul language, etc. like it does so often on other sites. :(

Ok, now I'm logging off for the evening, for real this time!

So true. Reading posts about the hate some have for Obama, it doesn't sound like a rational decision, but a deep seated hatred for (liberals? people of color? both?). It's quite scary. And seeing similar posts on the opposite spectrum calling McCain equally degrading names is disappointing.

Anyways, this election is going to change our nation no doubt. We are at a major turning point. Both sides will change the status quo. Whether it will be in the right direction, I do not think that there will be universal approval of what happens. I just hope that the nature of discourse will change, that we will learn to bridge the gap in our political views and pull together again as a nation of Rep/Dem, Straight/Gay, Religious/atheist, ect ect. Damn I am so idealistic and naive.



International diplomacy, you mean like the years and years of talks that led up to numerous UN resolutions, which were promptly ignored?

And "actionable intelligence" that led up to a multinational investigative force - oh, like the UN weapons inspectors - who were denied access to numerous facilities and then kicked out altogether?

You can't make an argument that ignores the facts...

Years and years of talk is what diplomacy is though. Kicking out the inspectors, ect. is posturing. It's what happens in diplomacy. Who are we to decide that the time for diplomacy is done and time for war? I guess it is the job of the president and not the people :p. If there is no immediate threat, why should we attack them. Of course this is just my opinion. And at the time, it was far easier to jump onto the bandwagon that we were threatened.
Damn I am still so idealistic.

[Wotan31]

No, I'm pointing out your selective use of information in support of your arguments. So far you've said: that you'll vote against Obama because he's just been a senator and then said it was okay that McCain is a senator; that Palin has "far more experience" than Obama even though those whopping 5 more years have been spent as a city council member; that Obama will raise taxes without mentioning it's only to the 2% of the population that have 80% of the nation's wealth and omitting that he's lowering taxes for 98% of the population; and now your claiming that the surge is the sole reason for the declining violence in Iraq, omitting the Anbar Awakening as well as the Sadr ceasefire that occurred before the surge even happenned. You are as liberal with your facts as I am in my politics.
(1. 2. 3. responses for the three sentences above, in bold)

1. I did not say that at all. Now who is taking things out of context? Once again, I said he was an absentee-senator. He can't legitimately claim time in the Senate while simultaneously running around campaigning. That's dishonest. And seeing as how that time makes up a significant portion of his overall experience, it becomes a major factor. Secondly, read my posts, I said I was not happy about EITHER candidate being "only" a senator. But seeing as we have no other choices on the ballot... It's a game of choosing who "sucks the least" to put it bluntly - and McCain IMO sucks far less than Obama does. Now you're going to quote me as saying "McCain sucks" fine, go for it. :p

2. 80% of the nations wealth. Think about that for a moment. That's a Damn Lot of wealth. What was the point of my argument? Or did you miss that part? The point was that those who own this wealth will liquidate assets in the face of a dramatic tax increase. 80% is a big chunk of the nations wealth to be playing games with. Read my posts again about the stock market and real estate market. If there's a date on the calendar when capital gains tax goes up, you better believe the NYSE and NASDAQ is going to be a fire-sale as everyone liquidates before the deadline. Same with real estate.

That's Real Bad News for *everyone* if stocks and real estate start getting liquidated. Why? Because all the "average joe's" out there enjoying their tax cuts are going to watch their 401k retirement plans go down the toilet along with the stock market. And all those who are depending on the value of their home as their single most valuable asset will watch that value plummet like a stone when this already soft real estate market gets flooded with even more properties for sale.

After the economy in the toilet, (far worse than it is now) and at or near full-on recession, what do corporations do next? Lay-offs! So now average joe is laid off and has no job because his office or factory or whatever got shut down. So now average joe can't pay his mortgage (that he shouldn't have been approved for to begin with) and goes into foreclosure and his house gets repo'd by the bank, continuing the downward spiral of housing prices and record foreclosures. But I'm sure he's enjoying that tax break that Obama gave him. :rolleyes:

3. Where did I claim that the surge was the sole reason? Of course there are other factors that contributed. I never used the words "sole reason" or anything similar. Use the forum quoting feature and you'll avoid these embarrassing mistakes! What I'm stating, is that the surge was a successful military operation - which McCain had the foresight to vote for, while Obama lacked that foresight and voted incorrectly on that issue. I'll dig up the quote tomorrow, but he and Hillary both claimed it would worsen the situation - obviously, they were wrong. Even after the numbers came back showing that huge progress was being made, Hillary said she would "have to suspend disbelief" (direct quote) to think that progress had been made as part of the surge - obviously she was so far off base with that statement it's just silly.

Please, if you're going to accuse someone of selective use of information or skewing the facts or whatever, don't turn around and do the same, it invalidates your argument.

[Iscariot]

Please, if you're going to accuse someone of selective use of information or skewing the facts or whatever, don't turn around and do the same, it invalidates your argument.

So then you'll answer my question?

[MacHipster]

(1. 2. 3. responses for the three sentences above, in bold)

1. I did not say that at all. Now who is taking things out of context? Once again, I said he was an absentee-senator. He can't legitimately claim time in the Senate while simultaneously running around campaigning. That's dishonest. And seeing as how that time makes up a significant portion of his overall experience, it becomes a major factor. Secondly, read my posts, I said I was not happy about EITHER candidate being "only" a senator. But seeing as we have no other choices on the ballot... It's a game of choosing who "sucks the least" to put it bluntly - and McCain IMO sucks far less than Obama does. Now you're going to quote me as saying "McCain sucks" fine, go for it. :b

No, it's dishonest to claim that he spent all his legislative experience campaigning. You're essentially saying he spent the last eleven and a half years campaining for the Presidency.

2. 80% of the nations wealth. Think about that for a moment. That's a Damn Lot of wealth. What was the point of my argument? Or did you miss that part? The point was that those who own this wealth will liquidate assets in the face of a dramatic tax increase. 80% is a big chunk of the nations wealth to be playing games with. Read my posts again about the stock market and real estate market. If there's a date on the calendar when capital gains tax goes up, you better believe the NYSE and NASDAQ is going to be a fire-sale as everyone liquidates before the deadline. Same with real estate.
That's Real Bad News for *everyone* if stocks and real estate start getting liquidated. Why? Because all the "average joe's" out there enjoying their tax cuts are going to watch their 401k retirement plans go down the toilet along with the stock market. And all those who are depending on the value of their home as their single most valuable asset will watch that value plummet like a stone when this already soft real estate market gets flooded with even more properties for sale.

After the economy in the toilet, (far worse than it is now) and at or near full-on recession, what do corporations do next? Lay-offs! So now average joe is laid off and has no job because his office or factory or whatever got shut down. So now average joe can't pay his mortgage (that he shouldn't have been approved for to begin with) and goes into foreclosure and his house gets repo'd by the bank, continuing the downward spiral of housing prices and record foreclosures. But I'm sure he's enjoying that tax break that Obama gave him. :rolleyes:

Right because before they gave the tax cuts to the richest 2%, the economy was in shambles. :rolleyes:

The fact is that before those tax cuts, the economy was in excellent shape. After the tax cuts, we've seen the worst economy since WWII, perhaps even since the Great Depression. The trickle down theory has failed every time it's been implemented and you want to keep doing it? It's not big business or the richest 2% of the country that creates a good economy, it's a strong middle class and small businesses.

3. Where did I claim that the surge was the sole reason? Of course there are other factors that contributed. I never used the words "sole reason" or anything similar. Use the forum quoting feature and you'll avoid these embarrassing mistakes! What I'm stating, is that the surge was a successful military operation - which McCain had the foresight to vote for, while Obama lacked that foresight and voted incorrectly on that issue. I'll dig up the quote tomorrow, but he and Hillary both claimed it would worsen the situation - obviously, they were wrong. Even after the numbers came back showing that huge progress was being made, Hillary said she would "have to suspend disbelief" (direct quote) to think that progress had been made as part of the surge - obviously she was so far off base with that statement it's just silly.

Please, if you're going to accuse someone of selective use of information or skewing the facts or whatever, don't turn around and do the same, it invalidates your argument.

Like this?

Remember the "troop surge" that was being discussed for Iraq a few months ago? In the vote for that, Obama of course voted against it. McCain voted for it.

As it turns out, the troop surge was smashingly successful at quelling the violence, and troop causalities dropped to record lows. Intelligence reports shows that Al Qaeda in Iraq was virtually incapacitated. The Iraqi government met nearly all of their timetable objectives that were set out for them.

Where in there did you attribute the record lows in troop casualties to the Anbar Awakening or the Sadr ceasfire, the two most important events to cause those record lows you mentioned? Or is your argument actually that the surge was the primary factor in reducing the violence?

[Trip.Tucker]

:confused: i havnt seen the problem.

so he doesnt like rushing into war, and wants to get rid of nukes, OH GOD NO!:rolleyes:

trying to reach peace with negotiation instead of turning the world against us with bully tactics is a bad thing......how?

You're either 9 years old, or have been living in a hippy commune on a secluded mountain all your life with those comments.

[hulugu]

Lupin, after reading this thread I've noticed you've made several different arguments against Barack Obama, but I think I'll focus on a few things he said on defense issues.

1. ICBMs. Although you used the phrase "unilateral disarmament" I must admit I did not hear that phrase used in the speech you linked to. I may have missed it, but what I did hear was a discussion of a movement from Cold War-era defense structures. For instance, taking our ICBM fleet off of "hair-trigger" alert would still give us a massive retaliatory strike capability. We current have 450-500 ICBMs (Minuteman III, per 1992 Washington Summit, one RV per platform) in ground stations, 14 Ohio-class submarines, each capable of launching 24 Trident IIs (eight MIRVs each).
We also have 20 B-2s capable of launching nuclear weapons, and 500 bombs deployable by squadrons of F-15s, F-16s, and F-35s in bases across Europe.

Assuming that the ICBMs cannot be quickly launched, we still can launch 336 Tridents, each with eight nuclear RVs, in a short period of time. Although this strike would fail to destroy the Soviet deployments, such a strike would be a massive blow to anyone. Furthermore, this also ignores the B-1, which was converted along with the B-52 to conventional weapon deployments.

2. Slowing Future Combat Systems. Currently, there's some debate about FCS and it's ability to help soldiers in the kinds of engagements they current face. The program remains over-budget and behind schedule and the Army is still considering just exactly where FCS should go in the near term. Part of the problem is FCS constitutes a large combination of programs, including future armored vehicles, UAVs, sensor systems, and computer systems. Parts of the program are being used in Iraq and Afghanistan, but other elements are hopelessly wallowing.

3. Halting the missile-shield. A controversial program that continues to have technical problems and makes the Russians twitchy. I'd have to say that current ABM systems are a solution looking for a problem as current and planned deployments would protect us only from a North Korean launch and very little of Europe from an Iranian launch. Currently, the ABM system is a technical and diplomatic problem that may not be worth it.

[MacHipster]

You're either 9 years old, or have been living in a hippy commune on a secluded mountain all your life with those comments.

So, you're saying that the Cold War ended because of military action? You don't think it could have been through diplomacy and the building of strong alliances?

[yojitani]

2. 80% of the nations wealth. Think about that for a moment. That's a Damn Lot of wealth. What was the point of my argument? Or did you miss that part? The point was that those who own this wealth will liquidate assets in the face of a dramatic tax increase. 80% is a big chunk of the nations wealth to be playing games with. Read my posts again about the stock market and real estate market. If there's a date on the calendar when capital gains tax goes up, you better believe the NYSE and NASDAQ is going to be a fire-sale as everyone liquidates before the deadline. Same with real estate.

The way you are stating this a) as fact and b) couched in dramatic language makes you seem somewhat of an alarmist. The fact is that some people threaten to move to Canada when another republican is elected and some people threaten to move their assets when a democrat is elected and the actual scale of that happening is quite slim.

In fact, alarmism seems to be your thing considering that's how you opened the thread. I think the only people who would be alarmed by Obama's message are those who feel that the US is constantly under attack - presumably for those freedoms for which 2% of the population pay less.

[benzslrpee]

going to the original post...

before Obama/McCain get's to make a decision, there's the cia director, cia deputy director of intelligence and Moscow station chief, ambassador, the generals sitting in the pentagon, department of defense, department of state, senate intelligence/foreign relation committee, Nato, EU...ready to burn a line straight to the White House door to interject their opinion and analysis at a drop of the hat.

those are just the big boys who matter.

i'm pretty sure Ukraine, Georgia, and Poland will also send their respective counterparts and whisper the right words to the right person to get their perspective into the daily briefings.

then there's the people in non-politically influenced positions in ABC agency on both sides that are probably negotiating further behind the scene. a potential war really kinda screws up the rest of your year and nobody wants to work more over time than they do already. i figure they'll know the game well enough to pacify the appropriate people so all hell doesn't break lose.

further down you have the media basking in all the drama, stirring up emotions and finding every "expert" regarding some random subject delivering "unbiased and accurate" news to America. of course, they think that their opinion means something too.

at the bottom there's the college kids (like me) who think that just because we are getting a 4 year degree, made the dean's list, it gives us the right to dictate how we "think" this country should be governed cause it's so painfully obvious that we should be doing X instead of Y. duh :cool:


i got kinda sarcastic towards the end but do you really, truly, think that a President makes every foreign policy by himself? my point is whether it's Obama or McCain at the helm they'll be fed the same info, by more or less the same people, the same way everytime. the end decision will most likely be the same regardless of who is POTUS.

[rdowns]

I'm not attacking Obama for being a Senator. I'm criticizing him for taking credit for being a senator - even though he's been on the campaign trail for the entire time. When you're campaigning for president, it's a 110% full time job. The term I used was "absentee senator".


Makes sense. I guess that's why McCain missed 58 votes while Obama missed 11. (109th Congress)

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/109/senate/vote-missers/

110th Congress.

McCain missed 407 votes, Obama 290.

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/senate/vote-missers/

[és:]

- A leading General in the Russian Army stated that if the USA installed defensive missiles in Poland , it would be provocation worthy of a Russian nuclear attack on Poland .
- Gorbachev stated that he felt that a new cold war was developing.
- This is a few days after Russia invaded Georgia , shockingly reminiscent of Hitler's occupation of the Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia in 1939.

The attached link below tells us what Obama plans to do to defend freedom.
This video does not tell us what Obama is "reported" to have said; this shows him saying it!
This is an uninterrupted 51-second video of Obama speaking; he's telling us exactly what he will do to the military...watch video before it is removed off the web site.

Peace in our times? Unilateral disarmament ?... Wake-up Obama, your complete lack of leadership experience is painfully obvious:

http://macsmind.com/wordpress/2008/06/08/obama-wants-to-protect-america/

People like you make me so angry.

[mactastic]

John McCain doesn't have a single day of executive experience either.
Oh come on. He's been in command of his servants ever since he married his sugar baby.

I'm not attacking Obama for being a Senator. I'm criticizing him for taking credit for being a senator - even though he's been on the campaign trail for the entire time. When you're campaigning for president, it's a 110% full time job. The term I used was "absentee senator".
And which of the two Senators running for office has missed more votes while running for president? Eh?

And I agree that it's completely impossible to be 100% ready for the job. Completely impossible. But having decades of military, local, and state government experience is a huge asset. Huge.
But NONE of that from McCain's side is executive experience. How much experience does it take to get shot down? How much experience does it take to get caught taking bribes from one Charles Keating?

Having been personally responsible for leading a massive organization i.e. fortune 500 company or governor of a state is better IMO, but we don't have that option on the ballot.
Yeah... didn't Bush have both of those qualifications under his belt before he became president?

No candidate has a crystal ball telling them the future, but choosing between two candidates, one having little to no experience, and one having far more, I'm much more comfortable with the old guy. ;)
That's fine. Others feel differently.

LOL! Are you spewing TV hype or is this an opinion you formed based on fact? I think it's the former. Give me real examples, not more meaningless hype. Here's an example that runs contrary to all your assertions:

Remember the "troop surge" that was being discussed for Iraq a few months ago? In the vote for that, Obama of course voted against it. McCain voted for it.

As it turns out, the troop surge was smashingly successful at quelling the violence, and troop causalities dropped to record lows. Intelligence reports shows that Al Qaeda in Iraq was virtually incapacitated. The Iraqi government met nearly all of their timetable objectives that were set out for them.
The purpose of the surge was to permit the Iraqis to make political progress during a lull in violence. While the lull in violence has occurred, political progress has not. Have we had new elections? Power sharing agreements? Oil revenue sharing agreements?

And now the Bush administration has tacitly admitted that Obama's plan to get out of Iraq is correct by negotiating our withdrawal by the end of 2011.

The Iraqis think we need to leave. Bush thinks we need to leave (although he was against leaving before he was for it). Obama thinks we need to leave. The only person who doesn't is John McCain.

LOL His campaign manager has run a great campaign. That guy should get an award. He's done nothing revolutionary as part of his campaign as you suggest. He is I think the 13th or 14th presidential candidate to run under the banner of "Change". Did you know that?
The irony, of course, is that McCain is ALSO running under the banner of change. Did you know that?

[NT1440]

You're either 9 years old, or have been living in a hippy commune on a secluded mountain all your life with those comments.

17, and hopeful of a world NOT run through fear and corruption. Just because thats the way we do business now does not mean thats the way it should be. Ever hear of leading through example?

oh wait, i forgot people like you like "leading" through war and destruction. Im sorry if I want peace and prosperity for ALL instead of a selected few.

[NT1440]

The irony, of course, is that McCain is ALSO running under the banner of change. Did you know that?

whoa whoa whoa, dont point that one out! they might just make personal attacks instead of looking at issues! i hear thats all the GOP does nowadays anyway....

Did anyone notice that banner was adopted only after the GOP saw the success that Obama has been having?

[Queso]

- A leading General in the Russian Army stated that if the USA installed defensive missiles in Poland , it would be provocation worthy of a Russian nuclear attack on Poland .
- Gorbachev stated that he felt that a new cold war was developing.
- This is a few days after Russia invaded Georgia , shockingly reminiscent of Hitler's occupation of the Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia in 1939.

The attached link below tells us what Obama plans to do to defend freedom.
This video does not tell us what Obama is "reported" to have said; this shows him saying it!
This is an uninterrupted 51-second video of Obama speaking; he's telling us exactly what he will do to the military...watch video before it is removed off the web site.

Peace in our times? Unilateral disarmament ?... Wake-up Obama, your complete lack of leadership experience is painfully obvious:

http://macsmind.com/wordpress/2008/06/08/obama-wants-to-protect-america/
When Vladimir Putin was initially told of the crisis in Georgia/South Ossetia, he angrily shook his finger at George Bush. That says more about what the current Republican regime in the White House is trying to do than anything else, and I for one am glad the Georgian government came out of it looking completely foolish despite Western governments falling over themselves to convince us Big Bad Russia was to blame.

It's a shame you haven't actually been paying attention.

[skunk]

Leadership is not jumping off a cliff in the hope that everyone else will follow.

[solvs]

Ok, I know it's been a few days, and most of this others have gone over, but here goes anyway.

I know, I know. And area 51 is full of space aliens, Elvis is still alive, and that half-baby-half-octopus mutant on the cover of all the tabloids is real - but the government doesn't want you to know. It's a conspiracy I tell you!!! Don't forget to put on your tin foil hat before you go to bed or they'll read your brain all night long and you'll be late for school tomorrow. ;)
Yeah, because that's an appropriate response. :rolleyes:

Obama has what, a couple years or so as a Senator-but-not-really-cause-he's-been-campaigning-the-whole-time?
As has been pointed out to you, he's been in the Senate for longer than he's been campaigning. Not to mention his time before that in State legislature, and being a community organizer. You have no problem with McCain and Palin's lack of experience, but Obama's is a problem for you? Really? Most of Bush's people had "experience" and look at how well things have worked under them. McCain has the same time of "experience", so I don't see how that's a good thing.

Plus even in the short time she's been in office, she lowered taxes, cut spending, and balanced the budget.
Like, as has been pointed out to you that you're still ignoring, she left her office as mayor with a $22 million dollar debt, when it had 0 debt before she became mayor.

The only thing Obama has experience in, is campaigning for office.
Nice tag line, but you either know that isn't true, or you're grossly uninformed.

And we're comparing apples and oranges here anyways. Palin is running for 2nd in command. Mr. Inexperience, oops, I mean Obama is running for the Oval Office.
What about Biden, and the rest of Obama's team? If Palin counts, are you going to say Biden doesn't? Or that he does, but since he's "only" a Senator, despite all of his actual economic and foreign policy experience, that doesn't count? Not to mention that Obama and Biden both have more people working under them that Palin ever has.

George Bush had political experience (and executive experience to boot) and look at how badly he ******** this country up.
Good point, that has apparently also been ignored.

For example, you and I both know he's going to raise taxes as soon as (if) he gets into office. Now believe me when I say this - that will screw our economy and make it sour even further. When taxes go up, people liquidate assets - fact. Stocks will be sold, houses will be sold, and in this already soft market, it will surely spiral into recession.
Please. :rolleyes: We're already in a recession. The economy is bad. Jobs are being lost. The stock market is already all over the place. And we all know what's going on with the housing market. So let's do more of the same and hope for the best? Obama wants to do something similar to what the Clintons did while in office. And we all remember how terrible the economy was back then, right?

Besides, as has been pointed out, many a time, most people's taxes will be the same or even lower under Obama. I suppose we could continue to give more tax breaks and subsides to the rich and large businesses, and hope for the best. But so far that hasn't worked out so well has it.

I'm not attacking Obama for being a Senator. I'm criticizing him for taking credit for being a senator - even though he's been on the campaign trail for the entire time. When you're campaigning for president, it's a 110% full time job. The term I used was "absentee senator".
First, he hasn't been on the campaign trail the whole time. Second, he was in local gov far longer than that. Third, when has he ever used that as reason he's qualified? Unlike McCain, and being a POW. Seems Obama talks more about being a local community organizer, as the GOP mocks that (great message BTW, not elitist at all). And, again, McCain has missed far more votes than Obama has.

And I agree that it's completely impossible to be 100% ready for the job. Completely impossible. But having decades of military, local, and state government experience is a huge asset. Huge.
Isn't that type of experience exactly what has gotten us into this mess in the first place?

No candidate has a crystal ball telling them the future, but choosing between two candidates, one having little to no experience, and one having far more, I'm much more comfortable with the old guy. ;)
Even if it's the wrong kind of experience that leads to what's been going wrong?

LOL! Are you spewing TV hype or is this an opinion you formed based on fact? I think it's the former. Give me real examples, not more meaningless hype.
Pott, meet kettle. LOL indeed.

As it turns out, the troop surge was smashingly successful at quelling the violence, and troop causalities dropped to record lows. Intelligence reports shows that Al Qaeda in Iraq was virtually incapacitated. The Iraqi government met nearly all of their timetable objectives that were set out for them.
None of that is true. The surge hasn't been a success. Most of those other things already discussed happened before hand. Casualties dropped in some places, but also spiked in others. 2007 was actually the most violent year. Intelligence reports showed we made things worse actually, that we've made things more dangerous for ourselves. None of the political goals were met for the surge, which was supposed to end last year, and even after moving the goal posts, not only are they still not all met, but only a few of them are even close. Being called "satisfactory", which is what they were called, is not the same as being met.

Search on youtube for the clip, but Obama said publicity that this was the result that he predicted. Eh? Excuse me? Then why did you vote against it?! :confused:
Actually, what Obama was talking about before is exactly what's happening. We're turning parts of Iraq back over to the Iraqis. Had we done that, and the rest of what he and Biden had been talking about, there would have been no need for this continued surge that our troops still aren't back from. And we would have had the troops he said we needed for Afghanistan, that the commanders on the ground are now agreeing that we need. He will admit the surge did some things, helped a little in the short term, but didn't do the rest of what it was supposed to do. Had it, it would have ended and we would have left by now.

So is that your idea of "sense and logic" from Obama? I hope not. :eek:
Is this your idea of "sense and logic"?

He is I think the 13th or 14th presidential candidate to run under the banner of "Change". Did you know that?
There's a reason it's working. That McCain has been using it as well. People are unhappy with the way things are going right now. Most of us realize McCain is promising more of the same. That's not just a slogan, look at his platform, at what he proposes to do. It's a continuation of failed policy. I don't know if what Obama is proposing is better, but we need something different, and based on what we've seen when others do some of what he's proposing, it isn't worse than what we have at least.

LOL! Getting a little hot under the collar? No need for personal attacks here on the forums, I believe that's against the rules. Can you not have a civil discussion? :confused: I'm sad for you.
This coming from someone who above was talking about someone needing to take their tin foil hat off. Now you're talking the high road? :confused: Kinda hypocritical, don't you think? To say nothing of how you seem to be attacking Obama, not his policies.

International diplomacy, you mean like the years and years of talks that led up to numerous UN resolutions, which were promptly ignored?
More like Nixon negotiating with China, Reagan with Russia, and Bush with NK. We could just attack like with Iraq. But somehow, I don't think that's better.

And "actionable intelligence" that led up to a multinational investigative force - oh, like the UN weapons inspectors - who were denied access to numerous facilities and then kicked out altogether?
That's a myth, and as we now know, there were no weapons were there.

You can't make an argument that ignores the facts...
Right back at ya'.

Hopefully we can keep things civil here at least.
It would be nice, but apparently not.

You're either 9 years old, or have been living in a hippy commune on a secluded mountain all your life with those comments.
That was also uncalled for. If you have something, post why and how he's wrong. Preferably complete with proof. Or just continue to make more ad hominems, because that'll make your point...

my point is whether it's Obama or McCain at the helm they'll be fed the same info, by more or less the same people, the same way everytime. the end decision will most likely be the same regardless of who is POTUS.
We hear this argument a lot, especially to not vote for to vote for 3rd parties, but let's be honest here, except for a few of the smaller things, and yes some of the big things, do you really think things would have been like this had Gore been Pres?

[seenew]

McCain's foreign policy:
http://seenew.net/whichCountryFirst_1000.jpg



:D;)

[bobber205]

God. This god damn experience argument is making me sick.

Obama has 12 years of experience in government.
Mccain has 26.

Bush was just governor and see how he did?

Jesus. It's not the experience that's the problem, it's the judgment of the candidates. :(

[SMM]

Threat of nuclear war? Lets dismantle all the weapons!! Hooray!! And everyone else will do the same, right? Right?? :rolleyes:

There's a distinct difference between a nuanced foreign policy, and a clueless foreign policy.

Your position is lunacy. I do not know what planet you are visiting from, but Russia can match us missile to missile, sub to sub. Russia is no eighth-rate power. We cannot demonstrate the ability to even beat them. Putin is no man to trifle with. He used to run the KGB for chrissake. You rattle a saber in his face, you might pull back a bloody stump.

The republican leadership are a bunch of boys, playing with big-boy weapons. If I were Russia, I would be very tempted to launch first, before some WH idiot decided to do it first. I do not know how old you are. Did you grow up during the cold war? I did, and I firmly recall the fear of nuclear annihilation. It took us years to create a healthy relationship with the USSR/Russia. The whole world was finally able to breathe a sigh of relief. Now, you propose to threaten that peace, over issues which can be resolved diplomatically.

Listen carefully, there will be no winners in a nuclear war. It will impact all of our allies. They might side with Russia, just to survive. If possible, please think about what you are saying and proposing. Then think about who's finger you want on the button. If this sounds like a personal attack, I see no reason to coddle someone who promotes threatening the world with nuclear war.

[NT1440]

Your position is lunacy. I do not know what planet you are visiting from, but Russia can match us missile to missile, sub to sub. Russia is no eighth-rate power. We cannot demonstrate the ability to even beat them. Putin is no man to trifle with. He used to run the KGB for chrissake. You rattle a saber in his face, you might pull back a bloody stump.

The republican leadership are a bunch of boys, playing with big-boy weapons. If I were Russia, I would be very tempted to launch first, before some WH idiot decided to do it first. I do not know how old you are. Did you grow up during the cold war? I did, and I firmly recall the fear of nuclear annihilation. It took us years to create a healthy relationship with the USSR/Russia. The whole world was finally able to breathe a sigh of relief. Now, you propose to threaten that peace, over issues which can be resolved diplomatically.

Listen carefully, there will be no winners in a nuclear war. It will impact all of our allies. They might side with Russia, just to survive. If possible, please think about what you are saying and proposing. Then think about who's finger you want on the button. If this sounds like a personal attack, I see no reason to coddle someone who promotes threatening the world with nuclear war.

THANK YOU!

[seenew]

Your position is lunacy. I do not know what planet you are visiting from, but Russia can match us missile to missile, sub to sub. Russia is no eighth-rate power. We cannot demonstrate the ability to even beat them. Putin is no man to trifle with. He used to run the KGB for chrissake. You rattle a saber in his face, you might pull back a bloody stump.

The republican leadership are a bunch of boys, playing with big-boy weapons. If I were Russia, I would be very tempted to launch first, before some WH idiot decided to do it first. I do not know how old you are. Did you grow up during the cold war? I did, and I firmly recall the fear of nuclear annihilation. It took us years to create a healthy relationship with the USSR/Russia. The whole world was finally able to breathe a sigh of relief. Now, you propose to threaten that peace, over issues which can be resolved diplomatically.

Listen carefully, there will be no winners in a nuclear war. It will impact all of our allies. They might side with Russia, just to survive. If possible, please think about what you are saying and proposing. Then think about who's finger you want on the button. If this sounds like a personal attack, I see no reason to coddle someone who promotes threatening the world with nuclear war.

very well said.

[hulugu]

Your position is lunacy. I do not know what planet you are visiting from, but Russia can match us missile to missile, sub to sub. Russia is no eighth-rate power. We cannot demonstrate the ability to even beat them. Putin is no man to trifle with. He used to run the KGB for chrissake. You rattle a saber in his face, you might pull back a bloody stump.

The republican leadership are a bunch of boys, playing with big-boy weapons. If I were Russia, I would be very tempted to launch first, before some WH idiot decided to do it first. I do not know how old you are. Did you grow up during the cold war? I did, and I firmly recall the fear of nuclear annihilation. It took us years to create a healthy relationship with the USSR/Russia. The whole world was finally able to breathe a sigh of relief. Now, you propose to threaten that peace, over issues which can be resolved diplomatically.

Listen carefully, there will be no winners in a nuclear war. It will impact all of our allies. They might side with Russia, just to survive. If possible, please think about what you are saying and proposing. Then think about who's finger you want on the button. If this sounds like a personal attack, I see no reason to coddle someone who promotes threatening the world with nuclear war.

Good post, although I will note that the Russian sub-fleet is a mess. From Global Security:
Of 62 strategic submarines deployed by the Soviet Union in 1990, by 1998 the Russian Navy had only 28, and by some recent reports, as few as 23 were operational. Most of the rest had been junked or were waiting to be. At a peak of the Cold War tensions, 20 to 22 submarines were at sea. By the late 1990s there were usually two, and they did not go far. By the late 1990s the lack of resources and qualified personnel forced the Russian Navy to cut back operations considerably, with typically only two of its two dozen ballistic missile submarines on combat patrol at sea at any time -- typically, a Delta-IV submarine in the Northern Fleet, and a Delta-III in the Pacific.

However, that still means a launch capability of 92 to 258 warheads, which is still a massive enough attack.

Furthermore, some reports have remarked that the Russians invaded Georgia knowing that our capacity for a military response was non-existent, making their invasion even less risky. The Russians are smart and know what they can get away with and what they can't. The invasion was short and sharp, giving the US and NATO little time to react with any kind of force, but leaving before the crisis came to a head. Frankly, they were successful in showing the limits of US/NATO power against the Russians in their immediate area. They may be able to project the same world power they used to, but the Russians should not be trifled with in their front-yard.

[skunk]

Your position is lunacy. I do not know what planet you are visiting from, but Russia can match us missile to missile, sub to sub. Russia is no eighth-rate power. We cannot demonstrate the ability to even beat them. Putin is no man to trifle with. He used to run the KGB for chrissake. You rattle a saber in his face, you might pull back a bloody stump.

The republican leadership are a bunch of boys, playing with big-boy weapons. If I were Russia, I would be very tempted to launch first, before some WH idiot decided to do it first. I do not know how old you are. Did you grow up during the cold war? I did, and I firmly recall the fear of nuclear annihilation. It took us years to create a healthy relationship with the USSR/Russia. The whole world was finally able to breathe a sigh of relief. Now, you propose to threaten that peace, over issues which can be resolved diplomatically.

Listen carefully, there will be no winners in a nuclear war. It will impact all of our allies. They might side with Russia, just to survive. If possible, please think about what you are saying and proposing. Then think about who's finger you want on the button. If this sounds like a personal attack, I see no reason to coddle someone who promotes threatening the world with nuclear war.You are entirely correct.

[Queso]

Furthermore, some reports have remarked that the Russians invaded Georgia knowing that our capacity for a military response was non-existent, making their invasion even less risky. The Russians are smart and know what they can get away with and what they can't. The invasion was short and sharp, giving the US and NATO little time to react with any kind of force, but leaving before the crisis came to a head. Frankly, they were successful in showing the limits of US/NATO power against the Russians in their immediate area. They may be able to project the same world power they used to, but the Russians should not be trifled with in their front-yard.
A very good analysis, except of course it leaves out that the Russian invasion was not an unprovoked attack, but in response to what Russia saw as power-play by a Western stooge.