Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The world has turned upside down!!! (Re: McCain vs. Obama for President)
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 16 of 210 (469790)
06-07-2008 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by BMG
06-07-2008 5:00 AM


Infixion writes:
quote:
Accurate predicitons, especially regarding wars, are rarely, if ever, manifested-"Iraq's oil will pay for the war", "the terrorists are in their last throes", etc.
There have been people who have been right about this all along.
But the people who have been wrong at every step along the way are the ones in charge.
Why would we want to elect yet another person who has been wrong at every step along the way?
quote:
Furthermore, it's unlikely, although I could be wrong, Obama will be as loose and ignorant of global issues as McCain (Iran is funding or working with Al Qaeda).
Um, I hope you are indicating that the claim that Iran is funding and/or working with Al Qaeda is what people are ignorant about.
Iran is not funding or working with Al Qaeda. They don't like each other.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by BMG, posted 06-07-2008 5:00 AM BMG has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by BMG, posted 06-08-2008 1:34 AM Rrhain has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 210 (469795)
06-07-2008 4:34 PM


Changing of the guard
I'm displeased with all the candidates. About the only thing that pleases me is that Hillary will probably forfeit soon. Obama is soft-spoken, articulate, and intelligent, but he is the king of platitudes. His oratory ability can stir a crowd about "real change and real reform," but he has consistently lacked how he would actually implement any of his policies.
And McCain, well, as impressed I am with his personal temperament and his service to this country, he has more waffles than an International House of Pancakes. And not on insignificant issues, either. He flip-flops on major issues. Because of his flippity-flip-flops he is now known as a R.i.n.o (Republican in name only). Plus it seems like he's the kind of maverick that would place the US on another front to increase the war effort.

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Taz, posted 06-08-2008 2:43 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Grizz
Member (Idle past 5471 days)
Posts: 318
Joined: 06-08-2007


Message 18 of 210 (469804)
06-07-2008 6:47 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Rrhain
06-07-2008 3:31 PM


You did not just say that, did you?
McCain has no respect for military service or he wouldn't have voted against the military so often. In the latest round, McCain is opposed to the veterans' education bill currently in the Senate.
He voted AGAINST the bills to provide armor and equipment to the troops in Iraq.
He voted AGAINST the bills to provide sufficient leave to those returning from Iraq before being redeployed.
He voted AGAINST the bill to provide more funding to the VA hospital facilities (unconscionable given the Walter Reed scandal).
He voted AGAINST the bill to provide more funding to VA inpatient and outpatient services (one of only 13 senators to do so).
He has done nothing but praise the war in Iraq. He voted AGAINST the commission to investigate the intelligence that led to the presidential justifications for the war.
Hi,
I take it you are not a McCain supporter.
You might want to actually look at the bills and voting records and not just repeat what you read on CNN. The same applies to Republicans who get their info from Faux News. You are discussing packed Bills. There was no bill to "provide armor and equipment to the troops in Iraq" or a bill to "provide more funding to VA inpatient and outpatient services." etc..
If one wants to fish, it is easy to listen to partisan soundbites that equate one line-item in a bill with the bill itself. This tactic is employed by both parties and usually is referred to as spin. Campaign staffers understand that the vast majority of voters have never actually looked at a bills contents and go by what the spin doctors and talking heads tell them.
With regards to the issues, I am not sure which bills you are referring to. Please offer the date and number and inspect the line items before judging the intent of the vote. For Instance, Bill 1591 required US troops to complete a withdrawl from Iraq by March 1,2008. The bill also contained other non-related line items. It is dishonest to say someone voted against one line-item in a bill without knowing their reason for rejecting the entire bill. Specificaly, McCain refused to vote for the bill since it required a rapid withdrawl from Iraq.
On the GI bill, McCain has offered his own version:
http://www.vawatchdog.org/08/nf08/nfAPR08/nf042308-8.htm
Certainly, this type of tactic makes for a good commercical: "Nasty John McCain voted against funding for the VA" or "Nasty Obama voted against support for the troops" because he voted against Bill 181. Like I said, the average voter has no clue what was in a bill so they believe what they are being told by the spin doctors. It is easy to spin a vote any way that is expedient. Too bad people can't really make up their own minds based on a truly informed opinion.
In short, the political machine understands that the average voter is uninformed, gullible, and naive and prone to accepting whatever it is they wish to hear. Party loyalty turns otherwise rational people into uninformed hacks.
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/...110/senate/1/votes/126
McCain Voting Record:
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/m000303/
McCain Key Votes :
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/...bers/m000303/key-votes
Obama Key Votes:
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/...bers/o000167/key-votes
Edited by Grizz, : Added Link
Edited by Grizz, : No reason given.
Edited by Grizz, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Rrhain, posted 06-07-2008 3:31 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Rrhain, posted 06-08-2008 11:32 PM Grizz has replied

  
Grizz
Member (Idle past 5471 days)
Posts: 318
Joined: 06-08-2007


Message 19 of 210 (469809)
06-07-2008 7:15 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by BMG
06-07-2008 5:00 AM


Lastly, I understand that because someone has these credentials doesn't necessarily mean they will not make mistakes, deceive for personal, corporate, or monetary gain, etc; but it may increase the probability that Obama will not commit some acts as atrocious, whimsical, or obtuse as we have seen in the past. I remember hearing once that knowledge is different than wisdom; knowledge is knowing the "right thing" to do, where as wisdom is actually carrying it out.
Hi,
You make some very good points. Although my preference is for McCain, I am using the 'lesser of two evils' approach to politics. I certainly do not have any information that would lead me to believe Obama cannot do a better job than McCain on foreign policy. I just have reservations about his experience and ability to handle Iran.
I could be wrong about McCain. I am wrong on lots of things. Obama supporters could be wrong too. We all want to be right and make the correct decisions. How do you decide? Everyone has their own answer to this question. Unfortunately, we won't know if we were right or wrong until we are able to evaluate the Presidency in hindsight.
When we talk about "Walk softly and carry a big stick", which one is more important?-- walking softly or carrying the big stick? These are complex issues. Perhaps after the debates I will know more, but right now I cannot honestly say Obama inspires more confidence in me than McCain on the issues of importance to me. The worse thing you could do with Iran is have them believe you are a "dove", even if you are not one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by BMG, posted 06-07-2008 5:00 AM BMG has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by BMG, posted 06-08-2008 4:46 AM Grizz has replied

  
BMG
Member (Idle past 209 days)
Posts: 357
From: Southwestern U.S.
Joined: 03-16-2006


Message 20 of 210 (469852)
06-08-2008 1:34 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Rrhain
06-07-2008 3:44 PM


There have been people who have been right about this all along.
But the people who have been wrong at every step along the way are the ones in charge.
Why would we want to elect yet another person who has been wrong at every step along the way?
I'm a great supporter of Obama. I fear a McCain presidency. My apologies for not making this explicit.
AbE: I think the four-letter "F" word -fear- is being used to sway the voters. It seems to me that the McCain assembly is painting a picture of a battlefield in which you can have one of two leaders to choose from: a tough, intractable Vietnam vet and former POW, or some sissy senator from Illinois that would walk into crossfire and wave a white banner that reads: "can we talk"?
Um, I hope you are indicating that the claim that Iran is funding and/or working with Al Qaeda is what people are ignorant about.
Iran is not funding or working with Al Qaeda. They don't like each other.
Yes, I'm well aware. McCain's claim that Al Qaeda and Iran are somehow allies is a frightening display of ignorance, hence the claim "it's unlikely...Obama will be as loose and ignorant of gloabl issues as McCain".
Edited by Infixion, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Rrhain, posted 06-07-2008 3:44 PM Rrhain has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3292 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 21 of 210 (469857)
06-08-2008 2:43 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Hyroglyphx
06-07-2008 4:34 PM


Re: Changing of the guard
Mind telling us who you're leaning toward voting for, especially now that we know for sure it's black versus old?
As for me, for the moment I'm considering just sitting out on this one.

I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-07-2008 4:34 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-08-2008 12:01 PM Taz has not replied
 Message 25 by Fosdick, posted 06-08-2008 12:17 PM Taz has not replied

  
BMG
Member (Idle past 209 days)
Posts: 357
From: Southwestern U.S.
Joined: 03-16-2006


Message 22 of 210 (469867)
06-08-2008 4:46 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Grizz
06-07-2008 7:15 PM


Although my preference is for McCain, I am using the 'lesser of two evils' approach to politics.
Not to prod too much, but other than experience and the ability to handle Iran, why do you prefer McCain? Or are these two issues, in and of themselves, enough to side with him?
I just have reservations about his experience and ability to handle Iran.
What specifically about McCain's experience persuades you that he will be the more qualified of the two candidates? I reread Message 5, but would you mind explicating "someone who has had their feet in the fire and has practical experience in such things"? Must a president be "experienced" to earn your vote? If not, what other qualities are important to you?
How do you decide?
I generally favor the candidate that has similar opinions on issues that I feel strongly about. For instance, referring back to the "speak to our enemies" idea, I agree with this because this is very similar to my outlook on life. I am a fairly non-violent person, and I strive, when confronted with an issue, to view it from both or multiple angles, so as to receive a firm grasp of what is being debated or displayed.
In the case of North Korea or Iran, I look from our side to theirs. Why would either one of them be so incredibly obstinate to the U.S. and the U.N. in regards to nuclear power? Well, for one, if I were them, I too would fear the U.S. Why? Bush's "Axis of evil" speech could be one. Iraq was also on that list, and we invaded and uprooted their leader...
Also, assuming they are generating nuclear power for the means of creating a nuclear weapon, perhaps it's to defend themselves from the world's largest nuclear-armed nation? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe the U.S. has started a war with a nation that has nuclear weapons. If they have nuclear weapons it could produce some insurance from invasion, and reserve a seat for them at the bargaining table.
However, I also understand that my looking glass can very well be scratched and distorted. My outlook on life could be inexpedient, impractical, and flat-out wrong. Perhaps Iran and NK cannot be handled in such a fashion? I simply don't know, but I like to treat people as equals at a conference table than as inferiors at the end of a barrel of a gun.
Unfortunately, we won't know if we were right or wrong until we are able to evaluate the Presidency in hindsight.
Agreed.
When we talk about "Walk softly and carry a big stick", which one is more important?-- walking softly or carrying the big stick?
I think it's "speak softly...", but I know what you mean. Must one be more important than the other? Perhaps both are equally important, or equally unimportant?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Grizz, posted 06-07-2008 7:15 PM Grizz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Grizz, posted 06-08-2008 11:04 AM BMG has replied

  
Grizz
Member (Idle past 5471 days)
Posts: 318
Joined: 06-08-2007


Message 23 of 210 (469893)
06-08-2008 11:04 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by BMG
06-08-2008 4:46 AM


Not to prod too much, but other than experience and the ability to handle Iran, why do you prefer McCain? Or are these two issues, in and of themselves, enough to side with him?
Hi.
First, let me point out that my preference for McCain does not equate to enthusiasm. It's not like I am saying, "Yee Haw ! McCain's the man!" There are things about him I don't like -- mainly, his waffling on issues. I really am not overly excited about either candidate. As already stated, my evaluation is based on 'Who can screw things up the least?"
At this point, I personally find that McCain inspires more confidence in me when it comes to dealing with foreign policy and Iran. I certainly have not negated the possibility that I might change my opinion once I take in more information over the next 6 months and listen to all the debates.
Other issues:
Iraq:
This is the tough one. We really need to have a cool head on this one and not do something we might regret in the long-term. For good or for bad, we are there and we need to really consider benefits and consequences before making any big moves. What is in the best interest of Iraq and our nation? Is just pulling out prudent? Will we be going back and cleaning up another mess when another lunatic takes power after a civil war? This is a complex issue. We can't just stay there forever but IMO we can't just have a rapid withdrawal either. There are loonies and sectarians waiting to swoop in once we leave and the Iraqis fear civil war more than anything else
On a side note, My brother is a West Point grad on his third tour in Iraq. Our family doesn't like the fact he is there. His wife certainly doesn't like the fact he's there. But he is there and that's what he trained to do. I have had a few candid discussions with him on the issue of Iraq. I have also have talked with a couple of his Army buddies. Although they are just a few voices, they do paint a different picture than most of the info you get in the press.
He never really discusses his opinions on whether we should have went in to begin with, but what everyone seems to agree on is that at the current time the US presence is the only thing keeping things from falling to pieces. They are also frustrated that the Iraqi government doesn't seem to be able to get things together. They spend a whole bunch of time and effort working with the Iraqi militia only to find half of them don't show up when their supposed to, run away from conflict, or just don't seem to want to take responsibility. He told me one story about an incident where they had trained with a militia unit for a month on patrol procedures. The day the Iraqi unit was supposed to go active and join up with my brother's company, they were left alone. They were pretty upset and when they went back to the camp they found the Iraqi platoon lying around and the leader sitting on a crate eating a sandwich. This is the kind of stuff they are dealing with. The Iraqi government and military is going to have to take charge and that's what they are training them to do. It appears this is the biggest obstacle and what is most frustrating for those troops involved in Iraq. In some cases, it appears that they don't want to take the responsibility.
The Economy:
The economy weighs in for me as the number two concern. Bush has spent like a drunken sailor in a whorehouse and I think it might be prudent to have someone with more of a fiscal conservative mind set to step up to the plate. I really need to hear more from each candidate on this. I also need to look at McCain's record a bit more. We also need to consider the recession and mortgage crisis.
Energy:
I believe Obama would be the better candidate when it comes to getting some type of regulations and programs in place. I think McCain might have more clout with OPEC when it comes to negotiating supply and production issues. I definitely need to hear more on this.
Taxation:
I would be lying if I said I was not a bit concerned that an Obama presidency will result in higher taxes. This is usually down on the list, however, and it did not stop me from voting for Kerry.
Social Issues:
I have to say these issues are low on my list this time around. That is not to say I think these issues are unimportant. Obama certainly gets the nod here. If we were not at war in Iraq and if Iran was not a pressing issue, I would probably be sitting here with a different opinion. But we are at war and we do face serious foreign policy issues. For me, these issues are number one on my mind.
What specifically about McCain's experience persuades you that he will be the more qualified of the two candidates? I reread Message 5, but would you mind explicating "someone who has had their feet in the fire and has practical experience in such things"? Must a president be "experienced" to earn your vote? If not, what other qualities are important to you?
I think it depends on what issues we are discussing. Again, I must defer to my number-one concerns, which are Iran, Iraq, and Foreign policy. I respect the military experience McCain brings to the table. McCain has seen war and has faced personal danger. He is aware of the stakes, both personally and for the nation. As such, I do not see him as someone to take this lightly. McCain has seen firsthand the effects Vietnam had on a nation. Although he has expressed concerns about a withdrawal from Iraq, I do not see him as a carbon copy of Bush. I see him as someone who is much more in tune with the reality of war. I see him less likely to do something hastily.
We are at war and we are likely going to face a showdown with Iran in the next two years. I see us being on the brink of a very serious situation with Iran, one that is much more serious than the problem Bush perceived with Iraq. This issue has the potential to tear the Middle East apart and lead to a very serious confrontation involving Israel. I see things coming to a head in the next two years and we will inevitably be drawn in. This overrides all other concerns and this is why I am basing my decisions on this.
I generally favor the candidate that has similar opinions on issues that I feel strongly about. For instance, referring back to the "speak to our enemies" idea, I agree with this because this is very similar to my outlook on life. I am a fairly non-violent person, and I strive, when confronted with an issue, to view it from both or multiple angles, so as to receive a firm grasp of what is being debated or displayed.
In the case of North Korea or Iran, I look from our side to theirs. Why would either one of them be so incredibly obstinate to the U.S. and the U.N. in regards to nuclear power? Well, for one, if I were them, I too would fear the U.S. Why? Bush's "Axis of evil" speech could be one. Iraq was also on that list, and we invaded and uprooted their leader...
Also, assuming they are generating nuclear power for the means of creating a nuclear weapon, perhaps it's to defend themselves from the world's largest nuclear-armed nation? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe the U.S. has started a war with a nation that has nuclear weapons. If they have nuclear weapons it could produce some insurance from invasion, and reserve a seat for them at the bargaining table.
This is an interesting topic that probably would be a discussion in it's own right. The real issue is not whether they have the right to defend themselves. As a sovereign nation, they certainly do. The fact is, however, the international community would never allow Iran to possess nuclear weapons. Such a situation not only presents a danger to the entire Middle East but also to the rest of the world. The problem is Iran holds extreme positions that are irrational. The leaders speak and act in irrational ways. Their stated goal is not to live peacefully, but to destroy Israel.
The Middle East is a powder keg. You have Israel and it's allies, Iran and its allies, and then Russia, China, and the US who are dependant on the oil next door in Arabia. If Israel is attacked all hell is going to break loose and everyone is going to be drawn in. We will eventually be drawn in. Every Western nation agrees it is unacceptable for Iran to possess nuclear weapons. Naturally, one could argue that they should be allowed to defend themselves with their weapon of choice. This is this is not going to happen, that's just the way it is. It is too destabilizing and has the potential to bring everyone else down.
I believe a confrontation between Israel and Iran is extremely likely in the next two years. I would go as far as saying it is inevitable. In some way, we will be drawn in. It is also possible we may use limited preemptive strikes on their nuclear facilities. If this happens, they are likely to attack Israel to get other Middle East nations into the fray.
There are any number of scenarios, the least likely of which is nothing happens over the next for years. I believe either President is going to face serious decisions on the use of military force -- when to use it, how to use it, and to what degree. The President is going to listen to his military advisors and the chief of staff. This is where I believe personal experience comes in.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by BMG, posted 06-08-2008 4:46 AM BMG has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by BMG, posted 06-08-2008 4:45 PM Grizz has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 210 (469896)
06-08-2008 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Taz
06-08-2008 2:43 AM


Re: Changing of the guard
Mind telling us who you're leaning toward voting for
I'm still undecided. I am, however, now slightly leaning toward a libertarian who found a way to cast a third party candidacy named Bob Barr. But this is still very much tentative.

“I know where I am and who I am. I'm on the brink of disillusionment, on the eve of bitter sweet. I'm perpetually one step away from either collapse or rebirth. I am exactly where I need to be. Either way I go towards rebirth, for a total collapse often brings a rebirth." -Andrew Jaramillo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Taz, posted 06-08-2008 2:43 AM Taz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Buzsaw, posted 06-08-2008 10:20 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 25 of 210 (469898)
06-08-2008 12:17 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Taz
06-08-2008 2:43 AM


Re: Changing of the guard
Taz writes:
Mind telling us who you're leaning toward voting for, especially now that we know for sure it's black versus old?
It would be even more interesting if it were a contest between a young black gay Christian man and an old atheist woman.
I'll vote for Obama and he'll probably get elected. Then our biggest worry will be Momma Obama.
”HM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Taz, posted 06-08-2008 2:43 AM Taz has not replied

  
BMG
Member (Idle past 209 days)
Posts: 357
From: Southwestern U.S.
Joined: 03-16-2006


Message 26 of 210 (469927)
06-08-2008 4:45 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Grizz
06-08-2008 11:04 AM


There are loonies and sectarians waiting to swoop in once we leave and the Iraqis fear civil war more than anything else.
Is it possible they fear and despise the American occupation even more? Cannot some, if not most, of the violence that occurs be a result of the U.S. presence? Cannot some, if not most, of the impetus for joining militia groups and committing suicide attacks be a result of the U.S. presence?
On a side note, My brother is a West Point grad on his third tour in Iraq.
Wow. I wish him my best, and hope he returns safely.
He never really discusses his opinions on whether we should have went in to begin with, but what everyone seems to agree on is that at the current time the US presence is the only thing keeping things from falling to pieces.
Perhaps this is true. Perhaps the Iraqis know this as well. What if they want to start afresh, and expunge any last hint of U.S. interference? What if they want the Iraqi government, "brought to you by the U.S." to crumble to pieces? It sounds cruel, but, again, I really don't know what the Iraqi's want. We hear/read what the U.S. government wants, and the U.S. public, but we rarely hear what the Iraqi people want.
The Iraqi government and military is going to have to take charge and that's what they are training them to do. It appears this is the biggest obstacle and what is most frustrating for those troops involved in Iraq. In some cases, it appears that they don't want to take the responsibility.
Perhaps they want to take responsibility, but not at the command of the U.S.? Maybe they want us to leave so they can begin to do this for themselves, and only for themselves?
The Economy:
The economy weighs in for me as the number two concern. Bush has spent like a drunken sailor in a whorehouse and I think it might be prudent to have someone with more of a fiscal conservative mind set to step up to the plate. I really need to hear more from each candidate on this. I also need to look at McCain's record a bit more. We also need to consider the recession and mortgage crisis.
I could be wrong, but wasn't GW also labeled a fiscal conservative? What has McCain said or done to earn your approval?
Energy:
I believe Obama would be the better candidate when it comes to getting some type of regulations and programs in place.
Agreed.
The leaders speak and act in irrational ways. Their stated goal is not to live peacefully, but to destroy Israel.
Which ones? The President, Ahmadinejad? The Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei? The Assembly of Experts? The Council of Guardians?
I recall Ahmadinejad is a holocaust denier, which is far off the scope of sanity, and his claim that he wanted to destroy Israel, but Ahmadinejad is not in control of the armed forces; that's Khamenei's job. I'm unsure, but has Khamenei said anything similar to this?
If Israel is attacked all hell is going to break loose and everyone is going to be drawn in. We will eventually be drawn in. Every Western nation agrees it is unacceptable for Iran to possess nuclear weapons.
Agreed, but are we certain that they are trying to build a nuclear weapon? Isn't it possible they simply want to generate electricity? Why can't we let them have the power plants but have them be heavily regulated and under constant surveillance by the IAEA? I can see this, though, as being too great a risk to allow...
The President is going to listen to his military advisors and the chief of staff. This is where I believe personal experience comes in.
He may hear his advisors, but will he actually give credence to what they say? I don't believe so. I see him as a stubborn, arrogant vet that will do whatever he believes is right, regardless of his counsel.
Statements like this generate alarm in me:
quote:
McCain had conflicts with higher-ups, and he was disinclined to obey every rule, which contributed to a low class rank (894/899) that he did not aim to improve...
...McCain and his fellow pilots were frustrated by micromanagement from Washington,[27] and he would later write that "In all candor, we thought our civilian commanders were complete idiots who didn’t have the least notion of what it took to win the war."...
...McCain refused to meet with various anti-war groups seeking peace in Hanoi, wanting to give neither them nor the North Vietnamese a propaganda victory...
McCain - Wikipedia
Obama looks at issues from various viewpoints and angles, allows those that disagree with him an equal and fair say, where as McCain, at least in my ignorant opinion, probably doesn't.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Grizz, posted 06-08-2008 11:04 AM Grizz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by randman, posted 06-08-2008 5:28 PM BMG has replied
 Message 29 by Grizz, posted 06-08-2008 7:02 PM BMG has replied
 Message 30 by Grizz, posted 06-08-2008 7:15 PM BMG has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 27 of 210 (469935)
06-08-2008 5:20 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Perdition
06-05-2008 7:57 PM


not true and not fair
McCain offers exactly the same type of "diplomacy" as Bush. Essentially, do as I say or we'll bomb you to death. To me, that sounds exactly like the mindset of the terrorists, and makes me very worried about the future.
That's neither true, nor fair. McCain's foreign policy positions are very different from Bush's when it comes to diplomacy and actions. First off, he has favored more diplomacy and bringing allies together, more like Bush's Dad. Secondly, although he does favor winning in Iraq, he isn't slow like Bush and his team to take the advice of the best the military has to offer for what are the recommendations for winning. McCain was dead-on accurate in his criticisms of Bush and Rumsfeld's strategy. He said before the invasion we needed a different plan. Once the invasion was underway, it's true he stood firm behind the troops, but you gotta understand the man. He did and would have done the same with a dem president.
Nevertheless, he continually argued for a change of strategy, from day one. With McCain, we have a shot on leaving Iraq with a palatable situation. Even if civil war breaks out, I trust McCain will have a better handle on when to, if at all, and how to and whom to throw our weight behind. He's a realist.
On Iran and the whole global situation, it's true McCain has a temper and will come off as better not mess with me or we'll bomb the heck out of you and the threat of that is a good thing, but McCain is more in the Colin Powell or former Colin Powell branch of the GOP foreign policy on stuff like this than Rumsfeld's. In other words, he's going to take a very pragmatic, non-ideological approach and not care for the politicking side of the military and State dept. It will be about getting the job done, and if you aren't up to snuff, McCain won't take 4 years to bring in a new crew.
Now, on other issues? Fact is McCain won't be able to get squat done since the dems control Congress, nor will the dems, and that suits me fine......best thing that can happen is Congress comes to accept limitations on their spending and ambitions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Perdition, posted 06-05-2008 7:57 PM Perdition has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Rrhain, posted 06-08-2008 11:54 PM randman has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 28 of 210 (469936)
06-08-2008 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by BMG
06-08-2008 4:45 PM


I could be wrong, but wasn't GW also labeled a fiscal conservative? What has McCain said or done to earn your approval?
Who labelled Bush as a fiscal conservative? You could tell from his campaign promises he wasn't. He talked of expanding federal spending in education and health care, for starters.
McCain isn't promising to be a compassionate conservative to use Big Brother to save you, and he's been pretty good at rejecting earmarks, though not perfect. Moreover, he promises to veto spending measures that have earmarks. If you ask me, he's by far the most fiscally conservative guy between he and Obama, and far more than Bush or even Bush's Dad.
About the only area he is not is the military, but if we can stabalize Iraq so we can withdraw or leave some bases WITHOUT COMBAT operations, I don't think McCain will increase the military. For starters, he won't get funding from Congress.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by BMG, posted 06-08-2008 4:45 PM BMG has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by BMG, posted 06-09-2008 2:32 AM randman has replied

  
Grizz
Member (Idle past 5471 days)
Posts: 318
Joined: 06-08-2007


Message 29 of 210 (469973)
06-08-2008 7:02 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by BMG
06-08-2008 4:45 PM


Is it possible they fear and despise the American occupation even more? Cannot some, if not most, of the violence that occurs be a result of the U.S. presence? Cannot some, if not most, of the impetus for joining militia groups and committing suicide attacks be a result of the U.S. presence?
Perhaps this is true. Perhaps the Iraqis know this as well. What if they want to start afresh, and expunge any last hint of U.S. interference? What if they want the Iraqi government, "brought to you by the U.S." to crumble to pieces? It sounds cruel, but, again, I really don't know what the Iraqi's want. We hear/read what the U.S. government wants, and the U.S. public, but we rarely hear what the Iraqi people want.
Anything is possible. Unfortunately, we base our opinions on what we are fed by the media. In most cases, they know as much about the situation as you or I can get from government sources. Obviously, we cannot really get a first-hand account and we have no way of knowing what is really going on in the minds of Iraqis. Most editorials and news bits are highly selective and often editorialized -- from both sides of the issue. Most of our ideas are formed after we have taken a stance on the issue and it becomes easy to shrug off anything that does not fit this mold.
The truth is, we haven't the slightest idea what the average Iraqi really thinks. One can listen to Fox News editorials were we learn that Iraq welcomed us with open arms or you can read depressing CNN accounts that detail only the negative aspects of the US presence. We need to remember that specific groups with political agendas are going to feed us sound bites and selective news bits that reinforce their positions. This applies to both the left and the right.
So, how do we really form an opinion? I don't think we can make a truly informed opinion to be honest. We do not have access to classified intelligence briefings or reports from inside Iraq. None of us are there, none of us have ever been there. We are limited to forming our opinions based on a few minutes worth of selective news bits on CNN or Fox News.
I have no idea what is going on inside Iraq. IMO, anyone who is not there and claims to know is just guessing. It seems rational to conclude that the Iraqi government has to take control of the situation before a full departure takes place. If the Iraqi government issues a proclamation tomorrow telling the US they are no longer welcome then it is rational to conclude they don't want us there. Until then, a premature departure might very well spell deep trouble that creates another mess we may have to get involved with in the future.
I am not saying we should not work on leaving Iraq as soon as possible. I am simply cautious about a quick exit. I believe Obama might be too hasty in a withdrawal. Perhaps he won't. If he gets elected, we shall see.
On a side note, My brother is a West Point grad on his third tour in Iraq.
Wow. I wish him my best, and hope he returns safely.
Thanks. We are always expecting to hear bad news. This is his last tour before he moves into a command role at a training regiment in Italy.
Agreed, but are we certain that they are trying to build a nuclear weapon? Isn't it possible they simply want to generate electricity? Why can't we let them have the power plants but have them be heavily regulated and under constant surveillance by the IAEA? I can see this, though, as being too great a risk to allow...
The obvious question then is, why not just let in the inspectors to do their job? Nobody is saying Iran cannot have reactors. When they took on the material they agreed to the terms of the deal which states they could not use the facilities to generate weapons-grade plutonium. All the UN wants to do is check a few things, take a few samples back to the lab. This will tell the UN if Iran is on the road to creating weapons-grade Plutonium. Iran will not allow this. Why?
tatements like this generate alarm in me:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCain had conflicts with higher-ups, and he was disinclined to obey every rule, which contributed to a low class rank (894/899) that he did not aim to improve...
...McCain and his fellow pilots were frustrated by micromanagement from Washington,[27] and he would later write that "In all candor, we thought our civilian commanders were complete idiots who didn’t have the least notion of what it took to win the war."...
...McCain refused to meet with various anti-war groups seeking peace in Hanoi, wanting to give neither them nor the North Vietnamese a propaganda victory...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I really am not troubled by this. From a military perspective, I think McCain was expressing what most soldiers in Vietnam probably thought.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by BMG, posted 06-08-2008 4:45 PM BMG has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by BMG, posted 06-09-2008 3:46 AM Grizz has not replied

  
Grizz
Member (Idle past 5471 days)
Posts: 318
Joined: 06-08-2007


Message 30 of 210 (469975)
06-08-2008 7:15 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by BMG
06-08-2008 4:45 PM


Sorry, I overlooked this one.
Which ones? The President, Ahmadinejad? The Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei? The Assembly of Experts? The Council of Guardians?
I recall Ahmadinejad is a holocaust denier, which is far off the scope of sanity, and his claim that he wanted to destroy Israel, but Ahmadinejad is not in control of the armed forces; that's Khamenei's job. I'm unsure, but has Khamenei said anything similar to this?
That nobody from the Iranian government condemns or recants his insane diatribes indicates either covert support for his words or indicates a government out of touch.
Did you by chance get to listen or read Ahmadinejad's speech at Columbia when he was in the US? If you haven't, I suggest you check it out -- if for anything, a good laugh. Every other thing he said was totally irrational and absurd. The audience was literally laughing at him. At one point, they were rolling in their chairs.
"We don't have any gays in Iran. Only the US has those evil things."
If this man believes all the insane things he says, he is out of touch with reality and borderline insane. If he does not believe them but is doing this to simply appease those back home, this indicates a nation out of touch with reality. Either way, a lot of things he says in his speeches are quite insane and someone is out of touch with reality. That the Iranian government does nothing to condemn or recant his insane quotes indicates, at minimum, a serious credibility problem.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by BMG, posted 06-08-2008 4:45 PM BMG has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by BMG, posted 06-09-2008 4:17 AM Grizz has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024