The world has turned upside down!!! (Re: McCain vs. Obama for President)

Regarding Iraq, I agree in the sense that the "right" or "expedient" or "correct" decision is nebulous. My heart says withdrawal, but my head says "I'm not sure". 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. "Speak softly and carry a big stick". This is true, and, unfortunately, seems pervasive throughout politicians' speeches. However, in one respect, the fact that Obama has agreed to speak with leaders of foreign nations, as opposed to the "shoot first and ask questions later" policy of the last eight years, at least, in present, seems refreshing and a positive exchange from the Bush doctrine.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).
He attended Columbia University, majoring in political science with a specialization in international relations.Barack Obama - WikipediaMoreover, Obama taught constitutional law part-time at the University of Chicago Law School from '93 to '04, something that was sorely missed during the infringement of our civil liberties (Patriot Act).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.Edited by Infixion, : Grammar

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"? 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.

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? 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 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. Agreed. 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?

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? Wow. I wish him my best, and hope he returns safely. 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. 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? I could be wrong, but wasn't GW also labeled a fiscal conservative? What has McCain said or done to earn your approval? Agreed. 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? 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... 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 - WikipediaObama 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.

I don't know, which is why I prefaced the statement with, "I could be wrong". Perhaps McCain is a fiscal conservative, but how long will it take and how much will it cost until "we can stabilize Iraq so we can withdraw"? So far, the war has cost the U.S. economy roughly $3 trillion. Iraq War - WikipediaWhere's the line that divides who is a fiscal conservative and who isn't? Who decides where the line should be drawn? My intuition, which is weak and insubstantial, is that he will probably reduce spending in certain areas, such as public services, and increase spending for the military, similar to the current president. But, again, this is purely intuitive from a certain non-expert on the issue.

Which, if true, disturbs me to a certain extent. Probably the most important issue regarding Iraq, to me, is "what do the Iraqi people think about the current U.S. presence? their Iraqi government? the violence amongst and between different Iraqi's? etc. It seems like what Iraqi's think takes a backseat to American interests. Some are, probably most, but there are more sources than just CNN or Fox News: EVC, for example. When can we conclude the Iraqi government has taken control of the situation? When will we know, in other words? A formal declaration by Prime Minister Malaki? A reduction in wartime casualties? Diminishing numbers for Iraqi morgues? Reductions in Iraqi military desertion rates? Possibly, but does the government always reflect the will of the people? Perhaps Iraqi citizens want us out, but the government wants us to stay? It seems like this may be a fallacy of distribution. Very possible, yes. Assuming this is true, I don't know. Perhaps he doesn't trust the UN, and thinks the UN will try to plant or manipulate evidence so as to warrant an attack or sanctions from the UN? Again, I think I agree with you that it is suspicious, but I'm lacking so much information as to make an informed judgment, that I feel almost ignominious in making a decision based on a lack of evidence. But it doesn't make it right or desirable that the majority of soldiers felt this way. I don't think an appeal to popularity lessens the notion that McCain may be an intransigent person, may not heed the counsel from his advisors, and construct a wall of inflexibility toward any criticism of his policies that will add another $3 trillion on the tab for the Iraq war.

Or government officials that fear oppresive retaliations from within their own government for speaking out against the president, or government officials that fear displaying any hint of national disharmony on the world stage. I read parts of it, and, yes, it was totally absurd. Even though the President doesn't have authority to launch a nuclear weapon, I will admit that a nation with a very likely delusional president with the possibility of generating a nuclear weapon is disturbing.However, the problem I have with McCain's approach to Iran is his "Iran better fear me 'cause I will not put up with them" attitude. I don't want our president to rely so heavily on fear and the threat of attack; this may lead Iran to believe that creating a nuclear weapon is no longer an option, but a priority in defending themselves. "Speak softly"...