A few "Changes" from Obama. Let's discuss.

A place for intelligent and well-thought-out discussion involving politics and associated topics. No nonsense will be tolerated at all.
User avatar
rn79870
Posts: 4807
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 8:54 am
Car: 2008 G35 & 2005 Vette C6 vert.

Post

There has been several requests here for examples of “change” that Obama is offering. In this thread, let’s look at the issues Obama addresses here and see if they are valid or necessary “changes.”
cnn wrote:PARIS, France (CNN) -- Barack Obama said Friday that persuading NATO allies to contribute more troops to Afghanistan could lead to U.S. troops cuts and help improve the U.S. economy, with reduced military expenditure being diverted into tax cuts to help middle class families.

"Part of getting that right is having the Europeans engaged and involved in this same battle that we're involved with," the Democratic presidential contender told CNN's Candy Crowley in Berlin, Germany, where he had addressed an estimated crowd of 200,000 a day earlier.

Obama's multi-nation trip, which has included stopovers in Afghanistan, Iraq and Israel, is aimed at bolstering his foreign policy credentials. The one-term senator has been criticized as inexperienced by Republican rival John McCain.

Obama also made a speech Thursday to tens of thousands of people in Berlin, Germany, and was in France on Friday meeting President Nicolas Sarkozy. His last stop will be the UK later Friday.

Asked what message his traveling abroad three months before the election sent to Americans, Obama said getting commitments from the United States' partners would help address some of the domestic issues Americans are facing.

"If we have more NATO troops in Afghanistan, then that's potentially fewer American troops over the long term, which means we're spending fewer billions of dollars, which means we can invest those billions of dollars in making sure we're providing tax cuts to middle class families who are struggling with higher gas prices that will have an impact on our economy."
Point 1. U.S. troops cuts and help improve the U.S. economy, with reduced military expenditure being diverted into tax cuts to help middle class families. Does anyone disagree with this?

Point 2. Bolstering his foreign policy credentials. A wise move considering his “experience” issues. Exposing yourself as a concerned and reasonable leader is not bad for world opinion. Sort of flies in the face of the “cowboy” picture they have of American leaders now.

Point 3. "If we have more NATO troops in Afghanistan, then that's potentially fewer American troops over the long term, which means we're spending fewer billions of dollars, which means we can invest those billions of dollars in making sure we're providing tax cuts to middle class families. This is a pretty good change as far as I’m concerned.
cnn wrote: Obama also said his trip was aimed at reasserting American respect in the world: "I wouldn't underestimate the degree to which people in Ohio -- or people in Michigan or Missouri -- recognize that our longterm safety and our longterm security is going to depend on how we can interact with key allies."
Point; Renewing American respect throughout the world. I call that good change.
cnn wrote:The U.S. and Europe can and will achieve far more when we join in a common cause," Obama said.

Obama said his meetings with overseas leaders were meant "to send the message that Americans want to partner with these countries in order for us to be successful, and also to relieve some of the burden on our fighting men and women in Afghanistan and Iraq."
Good change there too.

Comments? Criticisms?



User avatar
smockers83
Posts: 3889
Joined: Sat Oct 28, 2006 12:07 pm
Car: 2006 G35 Coupe

Post

As for Point 1, I would like to see the decreased direct spending seen from this used to pay off war debt from Iraq and Afghanistan first and any other debt that could be paid off caused by the diversion of money into the war. The indirect spending from the war should be used as tax breaks.

Point 2, I agree that it gives him the image of being able to conduct foreign affairs, but the experience is still the issue in many people's eyes. Personally, I think one just needs to learn the traditions of meeting with other leaders, be able to understand everything and have a pretty good understanding, and you can go and meet with someone. No one can gain experience in this until they become a leader.

Point 3 I don't necessarily agree with. Adding NATO troops may not bring Americans home for a couple of reasons. 1 in that commanders are asking for thousands more and 2 in that other NATO countries send their troops over and do not allow them to take part in combat or fulfill other obligations.

User avatar
Encryptshun
Posts: 11309
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2007 7:48 am
Car: 2005 Nissan Xterra
Location: Outside Chicago
Contact:

Post

Would a decrease in troops in Afghanistan really save us any money?

1) Don't we bankroll NATO anyway (like 80% iirc)?

2) Wouldn't we only save the difference between combat pay and normal pay for the troops we pull out?

2a) Thats *if* the troops don't just get redeployed to Iraq.

3) Don't we still provide NATO with vehicles, airframes, ballistics, and ammunition whether our troops are using them or not?



Return to “Politics Etc.”