Bush's Third Term = Obama??? - Page 3

kinggovernor · 07-10-2008, 07:33 AM

Originally Posted by Charles Martel

Jefferson's wife died shortly after giving birth to their sixth child. Lincoln's son served on Grant's staff the last weeks of the war, NEVER saw ANY action.

I do know FDR had a son who was a Marine, the Roosevelts being a military family, however, I cannot seem to think FDR made decisions during the war based on whether to throw his own children into the fray.

The Commander in Chief needs to make decisions absent his family in mind, should we all agree? Should Lincoln have thought it better to cede to the South as he didn't want his own children harmed?

Neither should a childless President be asked to explain his decision as he or she has no children. Should Clinton of sent Chelsea into Bosnia before bombing?

The assertion approaches nonsensical.

It shouldn't be a requirement but I believe it results in better policy decisions. One of the dangers of an all volunteer military is that it can be viewed as just another group of civil servants paid to do a job.

Charles Martel · 07-10-2008, 10:31 AM

Originally Posted by motivez

You said he was wrong, that American's didn't want out of the war, I simply provided a link showing you that he was in fact correct.

Not what I said at all. The majority of Americans...when polled...do want us out of Iraq. And so Obama used this fact in his campaign to shed Hillary. This is withour talking to the Generals or reviewing the reality on the ground...in Iraq. He's now having to "refine" his statements cause...as long as he says what some clueless Constituents want to hear, his "poll" numbers remain high. However, the flip happens when he actually begins to look at tenable move in Iraq should he become President. Cause immediate withdrawl...ain't a tenable move and he knows it.

And, I think if the vast majority of Americans are against our involvement in a war, Congress should exercise their authority and cease funding it.

Are they? So when Bush's approval rating neared 80% when we went to war, that should be having an equal affect, correct? And...this nation had an election...not a poll mind you...an election in 2004. This war was THE front burner issue in that election and Bush won handily, Kerry took only 12 or 13 states.

What's more, Congress authorized this war...by a whopping margin! They already DID exercise their authority...motivez. And they've continued to fund and support the effort as long as it was politically possible. As of late, we've seen many turn and run proving their worthlessness. Some have even gone as far as claiming the "war is lost", some even charging marines with murder removing their innocent until proven guilty status. The same status they're demanding for terrorists at Gitmo.

So yes, in effect what Americans want should dictate war policy.

Most Americans couldn't find Iraq on a map if I highlighted Baghdad with a Sharpie. Please. We have elections. A President is elected, so is a Congress. Congress authorizes or declares war, the Commander in Chief then makes the decisions. On your theories, we should have polled America on whether to land on Normandy or not.

Do you believe the coming invasion of Europe by Allied forces is a good idea or a bad idea?

For the love of God.

Charles Martel · 07-10-2008, 10:39 AM

Originally Posted by motivez

I don't see what any of that has to do with washing dishes.

Exactly. And as he's not qualified to wash Oval Office dishes, he claearly ain't ready to sit in the actual chair either.

The point wasn't about your education,

Then why are you deflecting to it? You were betting his "out stripes" mine. Mine ain't the issue here, I'm glad we agree.

it's that you said he wasn't qualified to wash White House dishes, when he's extremely well educated (probably moreso than you and most others on this forum), from arguably the best institution in the country.

I don't think an education from Harvard is the best testament to a good President. You're saying then....everyone graduating with a higher degree than many on these forums...is qualified for the Oval Office? Hardly.

If you want to say he's not qualified to be President, that's different than saying he's not qualified to wash the dishes.

Careful here. He's probably more than qualified to wash dishes. But...to wash Oval Office dishes? No. Not even close. He's a circus clown in my opinion, a nice orator, entertaining, nothing more, nothing less.

C4Casey · 07-10-2008, 10:38 PM

The vast majority of Americans lack basic tactical and strategic knowedge and are too ill-informed on the current situation in Iraq to be able to make an accurate assesment on how the war is actually going. This is why we elect politicians and pay military members to make complex, war-related decisions for us. Iraq is simply too strategically important to abandon all together, and a massive withdrawl of troops would serve to hugely de-stabilize the region. Look what happened to Cambodia when we left Vietnam.

And yes, the surge has worked. We were able to rush 30,000 more troops in along with 10,000 MRAPS, which greatly reduced casualties. We also changed tactics, sending more troops out of their bases in order to gain the trust of the local population. IED related deaths are at an all-time low, and the intensity of the Iraq war is now smaller than the Afghanistan conflict. I mean seriously, do you think it was a coincidence that violence plummeted in Iraq at the same time that we sent 30,000 more troops?

Scrum · 07-11-2008, 01:15 AM

Originally Posted by C4Casey

The vast majority of Americans lack basic tactical and strategic knowedge and are too ill-informed on the current situation in Iraq to be able to make an accurate assesment on how the war is actually going.

I'm so glad the Iraqis are asking us to leave so we don't have to listen to this garbage anymore.

Angus_Aboot · 07-11-2008, 03:12 AM

Originally Posted by SoFlaJDM

his position from the start was very clear... he didn't wanna go to begin with

That was his position only if your an Obama supporter.

He clearly wasn't fully against the war as consistently voted to prolong it. When Obama had the opportunity to enact Sen. Russ Feingold’s bill ordering Bush to withdraw most U.S. troops from Iraq by July 1, 2007, he voted no. He also voted against a June 2006 amendment proposed by John Kerry for the redeployment of U.S. troops out of Iraq. It wasn’t until May 2007 that Clinton and Obama voted to cut off funds.
Only since the presidential race started that Obama has decided to pose as a long-standing, level-headed critic. Even his famous "anti-war" speech he made in 2002 wasn't anti-war, rather a critical take on Bush's planned invasion of Iraq. His main concern, which he expressed multiple times throughout the speech, was that the Bush administration was hurting the legitimate case for American-made interventional invasions and possibly making it difficult for future regimes (perhaps his own, or a Democratic one) to send troops all over the globe to depose unfriendly regimes.

Charles Martel · 07-11-2008, 10:48 AM

Originally Posted by Scrum

I'm so glad the Iraqis are asking us to leave so we don't have to listen to this garbage anymore.

Yeah, so glad. Cause our occupations of Japan, Germany, South Korea, or the Phillipines were always dictated by what the populations of those nations were concerned with. Should Japan have wanted us to leave in 1950, I reckon we should have. If most Koreans want us out...no strategic or global viewpoint on security should dictate the decision, the majority of south koreans should decide if we use your philosophy.

It isn't garbage, it's reality. There aren't 300 million CiChiefs. The Iraqi populace nor the American populace will decide. Our Representatives in Congress and our President will decide...as they ALWAYS have since the creation of this nation. Garbage indeed.

WickedLou9 · 07-11-2008, 10:58 AM

Originally Posted by C4Casey

The vast majority of Americans lack basic tactical and strategic knowedge and are too ill-informed on the current situation in Iraq to be able to make an accurate assesment on how the war is actually going. This is why we elect politicians and pay military members to make complex, war-related decisions for us. Iraq is simply too strategically important to abandon all together, and a massive withdrawl of troops would serve to hugely de-stabilize the region. Look what happened to Cambodia when we left Vietnam.

And yes, the surge has worked. We were able to rush 30,000 more troops in along with 10,000 MRAPS, which greatly reduced casualties. We also changed tactics, sending more troops out of their bases in order to gain the trust of the local population. IED related deaths are at an all-time low, and the intensity of the Iraq war is now smaller than the Afghanistan conflict. I mean seriously, do you think it was a coincidence that violence plummeted in Iraq at the same time that we sent 30,000 more troops?

The surge didn't do anything. We already had 150,000 troops on the ground. You think 30,000 will make the difference? Jeez I wonder if it was just a coincidence that the groups causing all of the violence called a cease fire. Nah it was the surge I'm sure. You are too close to the battle to be able to see the big picture. Yes, we win tactical battles. When you put US troops up against insurgent groups, we win tactical battles because our troops are better trained and better equiped.... However you can't fix a watch with a hammer. MIlitary action will not and can not accomplish the goal of brigning peace and stability to Iraq. If the end result is an Iraq which is closely aligned with IRan and has a religously dominated government, we lost. I don't care how many battles our soldiers win, we will fail to meet the objective of making the world safer and making the ME more stable. The average military person is too close to the battlefield and too involved in the small day to day tactical decisions to be able to see this.

kinggovernor · 07-11-2008, 11:43 AM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

The surge didn't do anything. We already had 150,000 troops on the ground. You think 30,000 will make the difference? Jeez I wonder if it was just a coincidence that the groups causing all of the violence called a cease fire. Nah it was the surge I'm sure. You are too close to the battle to be able to see the big picture. Yes, we win tactical battles. When you put US troops up against insurgent groups, we win tactical battles because our troops are better trained and better equiped.... However you can't fix a watch with a hammer. MIlitary action will not and can not accomplish the goal of brigning peace and stability to Iraq. If the end result is an Iraq which is closely aligned with IRan and has a religously dominated government, we lost. I don't care how many battles our soldiers win, we will fail to meet the objective of making the world safer and making the ME more stable. The average military person is too close to the battlefield and too involved in the small day to day tactical decisions to be able to see this.

the US military is not fighting battles in Iraq. And yes 30,000 additional troops did help.

The average civilian is too far away from what is going on in Iraq to understand. I will post pics if you want me to.

Charles Martel · 07-11-2008, 12:16 PM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

The surge didn't do anything. We already had 150,000 troops on the ground. You think 30,000 will make the difference? Jeez I wonder if it was just a coincidence that the groups causing all of the violence called a cease fire. Nah it was the surge I'm sure. You are too close to the battle to be able to see the big picture. Yes, we win tactical battles. When you put US troops up against insurgent groups, we win tactical battles because our troops are better trained and better equiped.... However you can't fix a watch with a hammer. MIlitary action will not and can not accomplish the goal of brigning peace and stability to Iraq. If the end result is an Iraq which is closely aligned with IRan and has a religously dominated government, we lost. I don't care how many battles our soldiers win, we will fail to meet the objective of making the world safer and making the ME more stable. The average military person is too close to the battlefield and too involved in the small day to day tactical decisions to be able to see this.

The 30,000 addition also came with a drastic change in tactics, but you're correct, the average AMerican would have to be paying attention to know this.

Secondly, military action ALONE cannot solve the problem, however, the absence of military force surely won't work.

WickedLou9 · 07-11-2008, 01:51 PM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

the US military is not fighting battles in Iraq. And yes 30,000 additional troops did help.

The average civilian is too far away from what is going on in Iraq to understand. I will post pics if you want me to.

whatever. Iraq is a success. It is becoming a beacon of the light of freedom and democracy for the middle east . Everything is great. You're right.

Charles Martel · 07-11-2008, 02:42 PM

WL9, did we ever get an answer on whether your coward accusations carried to Obama as he voted yea on the FISA bill. And immunity.

kinggovernor · 07-11-2008, 03:06 PM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

whatever. Iraq is a success. It is becoming a beacon of the light of freedom and democracy for the middle east . Everything is great. You're right.

I guess you aren't interested in my explanation.

WickedLou9 · 07-11-2008, 04:09 PM

Originally Posted by Charles Martel

WL9, did we ever get an answer on whether your coward accusations carried to Obama as he voted yea on the FISA bill. And immunity.

Yes he is a coward too. I'm really dissapointed in him and I will probably vote for a 3rd party. I actually sent an e-mail to his campaign yesterday telling them that he lost my support.

Charles Martel · 07-11-2008, 04:19 PM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

Yes he is a coward too. I'm really dissapointed in him and I will probably vote for a 3rd party. I actually sent an e-mail to his campaign yesterday telling them that he lost my support.

Points for consistency then, WL, my regards, Sir.

Even though I vehemently disagree, I respect your stand on the issue. Kudos.

kombayn · 07-14-2008, 07:28 PM

Both men that are running are pretty much running on the same exact Statist platform. Obama talks about all this change, but all he really means is redeploying troops from Iraq to Afghanistan, changing FISA to be even more strict and being about amnesty... McCain is for all the same things except the Iraq War and energy policy. It's insane, I'm not happy with either candidate now.

WickedLou9 · 07-14-2008, 07:41 PM

Originally Posted by kombayn

Both men that are running are pretty much running on the same exact Statist platform. Obama talks about all this change, but all he really means is redeploying troops from Iraq to Afghanistan, changing FISA to be even more strict and being about amnesty... McCain is for all the same things except the Iraq War and energy policy. It's insane, I'm not happy with either candidate now.

It seems to me that he has taken a sharp turn to the center frmo his days of trying to get the democratic nomination, compromising some of the stuff he said before he was the candidate.

kombayn · 07-14-2008, 08:39 PM

^I personally think he's going for the bi-partisan platform. I'm starting to think he will really pick Chuck Hagel as Vice President, looking at http://www.ontheissues.org/ and checking out Chuck Hagel... He's Pro-NAFTA, Pro-Life, Pro-FISA, Pro-War on Terror, and Anti-Iraq War. Hagel & Obama agree on tax-credits for Health-Care companies and for U.S. citizens, notice Obama doesn't even speak of universal coverage now? And they're taking a trip to Iraq to see how it's going out there, he may be setting up Hagel to be Head of the Department of Homeland Security. Seeing Obama's shift makes me think he really wants to run a Centrist platform, we really don't need that while McCain is running pro-Environment Neo-Conservative platform.