Who do you think will win in Nov?

[smockers83]

I also find your comparison of change to Nazi Germany so flagrantly exaggerated that any other point you may hope to make will be completely discredited do to your obvious lack in judgemental ability.

Well it was intended to be very exaggerated, but my judgmental ability is perfectly fine, trust me. Maybe I should go onto Fox News and get canned too. It also went along with how I was taught to write about certain arguments in college. But I also did say that I wasn't drawing parallels to Obama and Hitler and I guess I should have also stated the US and Germany. Obviously there were different things going on, Germany was in a much worse state than we're in. I was using that case as an example, one that everyone knows, to show why just wanting change to have change can mean trouble, you have to be smart with change. I apologize if you feel my example was inappropriate.

Bob, what I meant by success is that we've seen suicide bombings decrease, less Americans killed, the government has been able to really start to get on its feet (meetings with Iran, and other states acknowledging it like the UAE has recently, countries actively trying to get ambassadors in, etc.). You are absolutely right, success is hard to define in war these days as there is no clear cut victory as there used to be.

[rn79870]

...and 5 didn't. </argument>

And if that one justice had gotten up on a different side of the bed that morning, you'd all be hiding your handguns! A 5/4 decision is a closer decision than anyone realizes.

[Encryptshun]

Bcause the purpose of the military, if anyone needs a refresher course, is two-fold:

1) Kill people.2) Break sh*t.

No. The purpose of the military is to defend a nation from enemies of the state. The purpose of the police is to protect and serve the people. When the military serves as a police force, then the enemies of the state become the people. That is why our activities in Iraq must end. We are no longer serving as Military -- we are being police. Or, if you look at it another way, we are no longer serving as OUR military, we are serving as Iraq's. Either way the result is the same -- our men and women are better served fighting our enemies rather than someone elses. Same reason calling out the National Guard to do anything other than assist with triage after a natural disaster is always a last resort and usually results in terrible consequences.

BUT, along with that, we need to get the HELL out of the UN, screw NATO, and burn every freakin' pathetic pansyass treaty we've ever signed.

You lefties want us to "come home" and stop being the "Worlds' Policemen"?

OK, fine. Screw Tibet. To hell with Darfur. Somalia can eat a ****, China can keep up their human rights abuses, the Taliban can keep up their executions and terror squads, and Ajemenaiheedadijan can build all the nukes he wants, and aim them squarely at Israel.

And all you advocating "pullouts" can scrape the damn "save Tibet" bumper stickers off your cars, because you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

I'm fine with that. No more pick-and-choose.

No more PETA saving the cuddly bunnies, while spraying your mansion for scorpions. No more "saving the whales" while chowing down on tuna and sushi. No more feeding the hungry in Africa while Sally Struthers gets her own zip code.

I agree with you 100%. I probably qualify as one of your "Libbies", based on your previously stated opinions, but I agree that if we want to get the f*** out of this downward spiral (economically, especially), we need some good old fashioned "f*** you, world" isolationism. I'm particularly tired of Israel being our toady. They flip off nations and then run behind us. They have a very capable military -- why do we have to rush to their aid? We still are owed war debt by France from WWII and how do they repay us? By not letting us use their airspace to conduct military operations in Libya or Iraq. f*** France. We want to fix our economy and re-valuate the dollar? Stop spending it overseas. Impose import tariffs on EVERYTHING beyond raw materials not made in the U.S. that are so high it's cheaper to make it here. We are not North Korea. We are not Cuba. Our people will not starve if we redeploy our resources inward.

That better, Greg?

[AZhitman]

Perfect.

And, I was being overly simplistic in my "2 purposes" point - We mean the same thing.

While we're at it, let's charge China DOUBLE for steel and concrete. We're their #1 supplier of both, and their hoggin of it has caused prices here to skyrocket... thus contributing in some part to the housing crisis.

I'm all for some isolationism and Imperialism - Let's get it on!!!

[rn79870]

Brian, I concur with you "if you're gonna do it, go all-out" vision.

REMEMBER who hamstrings the military. Terrified of one collateral casualty, we trade OUR boys and girls for theirs.

So, you're right. If we CAN'T go about our business militarily, then we need to bail. Lesson learned. Period.

Bcause the purpose of the military, if anyone needs a refresher course, is two-fold:

1) Kill people.2) Break sh*t.

Yes, but hopefully it is used against threats to the US and US interests. Not some made up WMD bullcrap like, well nevermind...

BUT, along with that, we need to get the HELL out of the UN, screw NATO, and burn every freakin' pathetic pansyass treaty we've ever signed.

You lefties want us to "come home" and stop being the "Worlds' Policemen"?

Yep, we want to become a nation that has some respect in the world, not one that is almost universaly hated or seen as a bully butting into the business of others.

OK, fine. Screw Tibet. To hell with Darfur. Somalia can eat a ****, China can keep up their human rights abuses, the Taliban can keep up their executions and terror squads, and Ajemenaiheedadijan can build all the nukes he wants, and aim them squarely at Israel.

And tell me, why is any of the the problem of the US? If it is an international problem, why does the UN not react to it?

And all you advocating "pullouts" can scrape the damn "save Tibet" bumper stickers off your cars, because you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

You've got me confused with someone who gives a darn about Tibet.

I'm fine with that. No more pick-and-choose.

So, I'm confused, you're agreeing with me again?

No more PETA saving the cuddly bunnies, while spraying your mansion for scorpions. No more "saving the whales" while chowing down on tuna and sushi. No more feeding the hungry in Africa while Sally Struthers gets her own zip code.

Ah, a vegitarian. (Greek for "poor hunter.")

Greg, it's always good to see you get involved in a discussion. You have many good points and you present them well. The more we debate, the prouder I become of the liberal overview I'm helping you developing.

[rn79870]

Encryptshun, The second part of your post was right in the center of the issue. Good shot.

[smockers83]

Perhaps a President more willing to trust and rely upon the recommendations of the Joint Chiefs of Staff as well as the Generals in the field will be more of a blessing than a President led by someone like Rumsfeld.

Now to me that is a scary thought. Chiefs of Staff give advice based on a militaristic perspective because that's what they know and know how to do best. What they want to do is go in and blow **** up. Cuban missile crisis, JCS and top generals wanted to go in and bomb the missile sites.

[Encryptshun]

The more we debate, the prouder I become of the liberal overview I'm helping you developing.

...



...

[smockers83]

We want to fix our economy and re-valuate the dollar? Stop spending it overseas. Impose import tariffs on EVERYTHING beyond raw materials not made in the U.S. that are so high it's cheaper to make it here. We are not North Korea. We are not Cuba. Our people will not starve if we redeploy our resources inward.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! That is what happened when the Depression hit and it made it worse for us and the rest of the world. When we enact tariffs, the rest of the world is going to do the same in retaliation and we undo decades of work on trade. This is most definitely not the way to go to fix our economy and hopefully DC learned that lesson from the Depression. Never should this happen, if it does I will leave the US, but it probably wouldn't matter where I go because it'll still affect me.

In fact, as our exports rise, the dollar will rise due to demand.

[rn79870]

Now to me that is a scary thought. Chiefs of Staff give advice based on a militaristic perspective because that's what they know and know how to do best. What they want to do is go in and blow **** up. Cuban missile crisis, JCS and top generals wanted to go in and bomb the missile sites.

I'm not suggesting that we poll the JCS for the enemy de jour, but that, once the decision is made, by congress, then the matter is turned over to the JCS to plan and execute. Not without restrictions, such as presidentual approval to go nuclear, etc. But having a war that is run by dimwits like Rumsfeld is foolish when we have competent gererals.

[WDRacing]

No. The purpose of the military is to defend a nation from enemies of the state. The purpose of the police is to protect and serve the people. When the military serves as a police force, then the enemies of the state become the people.

We're actually in basic agreement on the whole of what you posted. Except I'm going to correct one thing. Our oath says "All enemies foriegn and domestic". If given the order I would have been charged with executing any and all threats to the state. To include any revolution during a time of war. Not that it would happen...just saying.

This is a most excellent thread and I've thoroughly enjoyed reading and debating with such a diverse group of people.

Repoman loves mangina

[C-Kwik]

I totally enjoyed reading this thread guys. It got off topic in a very good way.

I will interject one thing. Experience in that of itself doesn't mean as much without corroberating the experience objectively. As an example, a man has worked for a company for 10 years. Another man gets hired for the same job and works there for 2 years. An opening in management opens up and the person that is there for 2 years is offered the position. The employee who worked there is displeased and asks his manager why he was not offered the position despite having 10 years experience. The manager replies, "There is a difference between having 10 years of experience and repeating 1 year of experience 10 times."

Point being, if we are to discuss the length of someone's experiences, we should be more specific as to what they are and how it relates to the current issues. Not bashing McCain. Just saying it's not a strong point of argument in that of itself.

[Repo Man]

Repoman loves mangina

Yeah? What of it granny grumpass?

[Cold_Zero]

I totally enjoyed reading this thread guys. It got off topic in a very good way.

I will interject one thing. Experience in that of itself doesn't mean as much without corroberating the experience objectively. As an example, a man has worked for a company for 10 years. Another man gets hired for the same job and works there for 2 years. An opening in management opens up and the person that is there for 2 years is offered the position. The employee who worked there is displeased and asks his manager why he was not offered the position despite having 10 years experience. The manager replies, "There is a difference between having 10 years of experience and repeating 1 year of experience 10 times."

Point being, if we are to discuss the length of someone's experiences, we should be more specific as to what they are and how it relates to the current issues. Not bashing McCain. Just saying it's not a strong point of argument in that of itself.

Good point.But my question about Obama would be, how much experience and how much can you accomplish with 2 years on the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations and 2 years on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee?

John McCain spent 23 years in the United States Navy obtaining the rank of O-6. He had command experience in Combat being a Squadron Leader. Of those 23 years, John McCain spent 6 years as a POW. While a prisoner, he was offered a chance to be released as a part of a North Vietnamese propaganda trick. Since his father was an Admiral in the US Navy, the North Vietnamese decided to capitalized on a good will gesture. The hope was to drive a wedge in moral with the troops by showing preferential treatment to an officer’s son. John McCain didn’t fall for it and suggested that other soldiers be release. This speaks volume to his character.

McCain has spent 21 years on the Senate Armed Services Committee.

We use to have a trainer at work that said, “I cant teach experience you just have to do the job to gain it.” John McCain as I see it has about 50 years of experience in leadership rolls, practical experience and accomplishments. To Obama’s 4?