Who do you think will win in Nov?

[stopcamping]

And you didn't answer the question or address anything I said, so we'll just assume you agree and/or have no debate skills.

all you asked was this: "But maybe I'm wrong. Are you working actively to change the current standards for the office of president?"

Im working to change The President.

[stopcamping]

Quit stretching.

Not stretching.

[rn79870]

Yes, here you don't argue that Obama has military experience, you assert that military experience is not necessary. That's especially convenient, since Obama has none, anyway. You also make the odd claim that having none may actually be better, 'cause then the President can just do whatever the Chiefs say he should do. Are you sure you thought that completely through? Are you saying that Obama will/should ignore what his SecDef says?

This is serious stuff, because it sure looks to me like this is going to be a contest between those that think experience and qualifications are good things in a President, and those who don't. Quite a weird disagreement.

Too many people have the mindset that the US is the savior of the world and the military is our only worthwile asset. In my opinion, the military is for defense of AMERICANS. We do not need a president skilled in the art of war, we need a president skilled in the art of negotiation and resolution. One willing to commit US troops as a last resort, when and only when the lives of US citizens or the American way of life is in jeopardy.

The lesson learned from the last 50 years is that War doesn't benefit the US. We can't be the world's big brother any longer. We need to explore other options. When those options fail, then it's the Generals who have the experience and the training to drive the war machine, not some Navy pilot whose military service is at least 40 years in the past.

[96Qowner]

We do not need a president skilled in the art of war, we need a president skilled in the art of negotiation and resolution.

So now you've admitted that you don't think a President needs to have any military qualifications.

So... how 'bout those negotiating skills? Does Obama have any of those? Has he ever demonstrated any? Keep in mind that McCain has been negotiating and resolving for most of his 20 years in the Legislative branch. There are any number of tough positions he took, fought for, and won, over the objections of many in his own Party. McCain has long-standing relations with many powerful legislators on both sides of the aisle who respect him for his skill and determination.

If these skill are good and maybe even necessary, can you point to Obama ever exercising them successfully?

[Cold_Zero]

If you require military experience to become president, go read "Unfit for Command." Military experience is by no means a prerequisite to good government. 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.

Looking at the past Presidents:GW Bush- National GuardBill Clinton- Draft DodgerGWH Bush- Active US NavyRonald Reagan- Active US ArmyJimmy Carter- Active US Navy (Submarine Commander)Gerald Ford- Active US NavyRichard Nixon- Active US NavyLydon Johnson- Active US NavyKennedy- Active US NavyEisenhower- Active US ArmyHarry Truman- Active US Army

Most of them had war experience in WWI or WWII. This may be a product of the size and scope of WWII. Where most people ended up serving in some capacity.bud

[stopcamping]

I cant wait to make the 1st thread here celebrating BO's victory in Nov.

brb in a few hours, got work to do.

[rn79870]

Looking at the past Presidents:GW Bush- National GuardBill Clinton- Draft DodgerGWH Bush- Active US NavyRonald Reagn- Active US ArmyJimmy Carter- Active US Navy (Submarine Commander)Gerald Ford- Active US NavyRichard Nixon- Active US NavyLydon Johnson- Active US NavyKennedy- Active US NavyEisenhower- Active US ArmyHarry Truman- Active US Army

Most of them had war experience in WWI or WWII.

Okay Bud, GW and the National Guard would make a thread in itself.

Other than that, what wars has the US fought in the last 50 years that protected a single American life? We fought in Southeast Asia to prevent the spread of Communism. That worked well didn't it. I'm not blaming the servicemen who fought there, but the politicians who sent them into harms way with their hands tied behind their backs. Politicians, even those with military experience as you've pointed out, make poor generals.

Isn't it time that we parked the tanks and brought the troops home? Isn't it time that we tried a new approach? The one we've been on has been expensive financially, and even worse, in the lives lost. I'm sorry, but McCain has nothing to offer but more of the same. If he gets in, we'll be in Iraq indefinitely, and who knows where else.

[Cold_Zero]

Okay Bud, GW and the National Guard would make a thread in itself.

Other than that, what wars has the US fought in the last 50 years that protected a single American life? We fought in Southeast Asia to prevent the spread of Communism. That worked well didn't it. I'm not blaming the servicemen who fought there, but the politicians who sent them into harms way with their hands tied behind their backs. Politicians, even those with military experience as you've pointed out, make poor generals.

Isn't it time that we parked the tanks and brought the troops home? Isn't it time that we tried a new approach? The one we've been on has been expensive financially, and even worse, in the lives lost. I'm sorry, but McCain has nothing to offer but more of the same. If he gets in, we'll be in Iraq indefinitely, and who knows where else.

Bob,Why 50? Why not 100? Regardless,I think that the Kuwaitis and the Saudis (for the most part the Princes) are happy that we and the Coaltion Deployed Troops to liberate Kuwait and Subdue Iraq. I also fail to see how Operation Just Cause, Operation Urgent Fury and Operation Uphold Democracy were bad things? Restoring Democracy to Panama, Grenada and Haiti.

Now, I disagree with our bombing of Serbia and the invasion of Kosovo. For my own personal reasons.

[Repo Man]

I cant wait to make the 1st thread here celebrating BO's victory in Nov.

brb in a few hours, got work to do.

That's it? That's all you got?

[WDRacing]

Well Brian, apparently not everyone that is deployed feels the same way that you do. There were 1215 soldiers (twice the number from last year) that re-upped on the 4th of July in one of Saddam's palaces under General Petraeus:

Two things...

When you cut me open I bleed red white and fvckin blue *****.

I never once claimed that my opinion was a reflection of others in or out of the military. It is mine and I have my reasons. I was in what is called a high demand low density unit Andy. So I didn't fall under an AEF cycle. So instead of doing tours and being home for 2-3 years at a time, I was gone for 6 months a year...every friggin year. Sometimes more depending on training deployments that ran inbetween my rotations.

My first reenlistment was done flying in the copilots seat of an MH53J Pavelow at 500' over the Pacific ocean on my way to do shipboard ops with the Navy out of SD CA.

Also, when you reenlist oversea's in theatre the bonus you get is tax free. So those soldiers made 28% on an average 50K reenlistment bonus. Now I'm not saying that's the reason the reupped, but it does make for a nice bonus. I know for a fact that soldiers and sailors around the world try to be in theatre during their reenlistment just for that reason.

Last thing...anyone on here ever calls me a quiter or even insinuates that I'm a quiter and I'll will literally come to your home and put a wicked beating on you. Us being out of Iraq keeps my wife from being deployed there. Keeping a Republican in office will only insure that we stay in Iraq longer and that Iran gets invaded shortly there after. I hear there may be terrorists there...

[Encryptshun]

Regarding the military service versus military experience of our past presidents, let me point out that Reagan never left the continental U.S. during his 5 years of reserve corps or 3 years active enlisted during WWII. He was an actor in the 1st Motion Picuture Unit in culver city, California making propaganda films.

I'm not disparaging Reagan in any way, but how much "military experience" would you say he got making films? And I, for one, think he was a damned good military leader and President.

[Repo Man]

Two things...

When you cut me open I bleed red white and fvckin blue *****.

I never once claimed that my opinion was a reflection of others in or out of the military.

Jesus B, calm down. That wasn't an attack on you, so STFU. I was merely pointing out that not everyone feels the same way as you, but there isn't a damn thing wrong with how you feel. Damn, I thought you knew me better than that. Not once was I questioning your service or sense of duty.

[WDRacing]

I know man...my reply was to everyone, it just happened to involve the statement you made. You know I'd never wanna fight you buddy...cept maybe for the last beer in the fridge. Which I would totally get

And I'm actually quite calm...lol. When I'm heated it's like barely controlled black rage in a can

There is just so much talk of experience and military yada yada it kinda makes me want to throw up. What we have right now is a country that has been lead by people with military experience and is now in a recession while having it's military spread thinner today then it has ever been. Those are two irrefutable facts. So I fail to see how a guy not having military experience can actually be a bad thing. The President has the Joint Chiefs, his Cabinet, Congress and the entire friggin Senate if he wants a second opinion. It's like everyone blaming GW for every problem in the world...it was the GOV as a whole that got us to where we are today, not the capt of the boat. Now stand down, I'm not saying the Pres isn't the man in charge...he is. But the entire Gov body as a whole with an entire slew of checks and balances has failed here.

And stop saying that Obama wants to quit...that's just stupid and I'm tired of reading it. It makes every friggin word after it mean absolutely nothing and it throws your arguments in the trash. Obama didn't support the war, so what. Thousands upon thousands of people didn't support the war.

Obama supports a draw down over two years, which is right on par with General Petraeus. Should we call him a quitter now?

WD

[96Qowner]

I'm the guy who said that all Obama ever wanted in Iraq was to quit, and I never even meant to insinuate that you're a quitter or that your opinion isn't valid and legitimate. I can see that you're educated on the issue and that your opinion is well thought-out. I'm not at all fond of cheap shots.

But Obama HAS only offered the option of quitting. He now wants to see combat troops withdrawn from Iraq by some time in 2010, which is pretty much what McCain and our current military leaders see as a workable timeframe, too.

Obama supports a draw down over two years, which is right on par with General Petraeus. Should we call him a quitter now?

The difference is that all Obama ever wanted was to quit, while Petraeus wanted to accomplish something in Iraq before we withdrew. As I said, if your answer to every circumstance in Iraq is simply to quit, that doesn't exactly show good judgment. Obama not only never supported the war, but all he ever offered as a solution was withdrawal, no matter the circumstances.

And are you actually saying that you don't think military experience is desirable in a President? If so, that's fine, we can go on to discussing Obama's lack of qualifications in other areas.

[Cold_Zero]

Two things...

When you cut me open I bleed red white and fvckin blue *****.

I thought you were just full of s*** j/k

[rn79870]

Pulling troops out isn't quitting. It's about forcing the Iraqi people to stand and assume responsibility for their security. Let NATO intervene if they can't, not the US.

[WDRacing]

And are you actually saying that you don't think military experience is desirable in a President? If so, that's fine, we can go on to discussing Obama's lack of qualifications in other areas.

I'm not saying it isn't desirable, I'm saying it isn't required. Like I said, the previous leaders have had a military background and our country is currently not doing very well at all. So this background hasn't been proven as a good thing. Perhaps having a background in the military has made them more apt to go to war and or not withdraw when we could have or should have. That's not fact, but it is a possibility. Also, there previous military background didn't really allow us to accomplish what I would call anything close to what we could have with better leadership. If that makes sense...

In short, my thoughts are this. Our country has no stomach for war. By that I mean our leaders don't allow us to capitalize by using all of our available resources. We ***** footed around and got people killed rather then rolling in and destroying any and all things walking or crawling. Look at Fallujah...WTF were we thinking there? We handed over control of the city to the same friggin people we were fighting against. Had the people in charge not been handcuffed, we would have dropped the leaflets like we did, then bombed the entire city and left a check for a billion dollars...peace I'm out.

Oh look, we captured these dudes...here go stay with the Russian interrogator for a few weeks. That's how **** gets done...

But no, we get saddled down with the liberal media who is to busy reporting about dead soldiers and giving away mission plans to actually catch any of the good we've been doing over there.

I could go on for days man...I guess what I'm saying is, either do it all the way, or don't do it at all. At this point we've spent a trillion dollars and have killed to many Americans. It's to late in the game to start doing things right.

BTW, we stopped the Russian army from invading for about 1.2 billion dollars in arms deals and some covert CIA ops. Are you telling me that children carrying AKs and Stingers are better equipped then the US War Machine? Of course not, but those people we armed had the will to win...to do what was required. We do not..to many fvcking liberal p****** running around.

[WDRacing]

I thought you were just full of s*** j/k

ZOMG you're getting a ballsmack

[stopcamping]

That's it? That's all you got?

Huh? what are you referring to?

btw, are you in the military?

[96Qowner]

I could go on for days man...I guess what I'm saying is, either do it all the way, or don't do it at all. At this point we've spent a trillion dollars and have killed to many Americans. It's to late in the game to start doing things right.

I'm with you 100% on this one, man. Cheney and Rumsfeld thought they could do it on the cheap - they were so wrong.

Ok, so if you don't think military experience is necessary in a President, I guess it doesn't matter that Obama has no clue at all. It just seems rather convenient to me. This always happens when talking to an Obama supporter about his qualifications and experience. It turns out that qualifications and experience aren't necessary in a President, therefore we can vote for Obama and not have to worry about it.

It just seems ... odd ... to me. You'd think that people would want an experienced person as President. This may be the first election in recent memory where voters declare that they want the unqualified guy.

[stopcamping]

96Qowner why do you keep ignoring the fact that Bush was also an "unqualified guy"

[WDRacing]

I wouldn't say it's inexperience, it's less experience then the older dude that's about to die...lol.

Any election is about sales and presentation man. Obama is selling something the American people want. They've been getting mouths full of lies and feces from GW for 8 years. The economy is in the tank, the war seems to be ever lasting...

So Obama simply preaches change. Real easy man, tell people what they want to hear and they buy your product.

Although it's not like he's uneducated. He may lack experience, but he is a very smart person regardless. He's going to win the election and probably by quite a bit. I'm interested to see how things turn out. Nothing he does will really effect me in a bad way, unless we invade Iran and he raises taxes. Other then that, nothing he does can't be undone later. But what if he does manage to do something...

The world needs hope and he's selling it cheap.

To me it's getting out of Iraq and not spending anymore of my tax money on war. I simply do not trust the Repubs when it comes to withdrawing the troops. When the next election comes along I'll base my decision on that set of circumstance.

BTW, another tidbit. Did you know we're so broke that they're actually contemplating not allowing the US military to draw retirement until they turn 65. So after 20 years of service, you have to go find a new job because your service wasn't enough. But a Senator or Gov on the other hand will receive 100% salary for the rest of their lives for doing one single term in office. You tell me whats wrong with that picture.

[Encryptshun]

96Qowner why do you keep ignoring the fact that Bush was also an "unqualified guy"

He didn't ignore it. He stated repeatedly that Bush is not running for President in 2008, so he's not an issue. This debate is between Obama and McCain.

[Encryptshun]

So after 20 years of service, you have to go find a new job because your service wasn't enough. But a Senator or Gov on the other hand will receive 100% salary for the rest of their lives for doing one single term in office. You tell me whats wrong with that picture.

The fox is guarding the henhouse.

[WDRacing]

96Qowner why do you keep ignoring the fact that Bush was also an "unqualified guy"

This thread isn't about Bush...any further mention or debate will be considered off topic and removed. Debate whats on topic, Obama and McCain. If saying Bush is inexperienced is your argument FOR Obama then you need to retire. Because the country is in a shambles and we have more debt then we have EVER had. So that would be an argument for McCain.

Regardless, this isn't about Bush and no one wants to debate that point anymore as it simply draws the conversation away from the main point.

ThanksWD

[AZhitman]

Yeah because in your eyes GWB created the bill of rights.

BTW, you still haven't explained why you favored GWB even though he had a crappy experience record.

Don't change the topic. I'm not a GWB fan. I don't think he's "good for America".

Bush drank and became an alcoholic. Obama snorted and did not become a coke addict. Huge difference. I respect people who've used drugs (alcohol is a drug too) and not become an addict. It shows that they're not weak-minded and are open-minded.

Guess I'm weak-minded, since I made a conscious decision to avoid both, with the exception of social drinks.

I'll pass on your respect - Keep it. If that's what earns it, no thanks.

[AZhitman]

Don't forget that 4 of the SCOTUS justices agreed with Obama. So that argument doesn't really hold water.

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

[AZhitman]

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.

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.

[WDRacing]

That my friend is quite possibly the most perfect post ever written and entered on the great WWW.

War is hell, but isn't it better if it's hell for the opposing force instead?

One Blue 82 and we would have killed over 5000 insurgents in Fallujah and not one American. Here's a blank check, rebuild and send us a dollar amount. I guarantee the price would be less then what we spent in American lives during that conflict. I'll gladly pay taxes for that.

ZOMG, they are hiding in that Mosque...announce a bombing, wait 4 hrs, collect and interrogate ALL that leave, bomb and rebuild the Mosque.

ZOMG, they are hiding in those caves. Huh...well lets roll in this here low yield nuke. No interrogation needed...

/end game

[Repo Man]

Well, what is f'ed up are the Rules of Engagement...

One Blue 82 and we would have killed over 5000 insurgents in Fallujah and not one American. Here's a blank check, rebuild and send us a dollar amount. I guarantee the price would be less then what we spent in American lives during that conflict. I'll gladly pay taxes for that.

ZOMG, they are hiding in that Mosque...announce a bombing, wait 4 hrs, collect and interrogate ALL that leave, bomb and rebuild the Mosque.

ZOMG, they are hiding in those caves. Huh...well lets roll in this here low yield nuke. No interrogation needed...

/end game

Exactly.