Thread: Hillary or Obama

I would have taken us into Afghanistan......period. Certainly Iraq would have been on the radar.......much as North Korea would have been also. But, without clear evidence of WMD's in Iraq I would not have taken out Hussein (Even though he deserved it). When you are the President of the United States you can't just go off half cocked. Half Cocked should be Bush's nickname.

The war in Iraq only BEGINS my problems with Bush. He's a moron plain and simple. The guy does not have a clue on diplomacy. He's dumber than a 5th grader when it comes to modern science. Stem Cell Research was a big peeve of mine......he has cost many lives from that fiasco. Agreeing that "Intelligent Design" should be taught in science classes ("cough" "moron" "cough"). Denying that Global Warming is a reality.......not that I have any answers there, and I'm not even saying people are totally responsible for it... but denying it exists is moronic. The list goes on.....

And to the gentleman who asked for facts not opinion I say

This is all about opinion. I have my reasons (some of which are stated above) for my opinion.

Originally Posted by Fred40

without clear evidence of WMD's in Iraq

according to this guy... there was. Besides, for 8 "pre-Bush" years we were spoon fed that Iraq had WMDs. According to Clinton/Gore... They did.





Don't even get me started on global warming. I'll just leave you with this...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/artic...NTARY/10575140

and this is from Time magazine... from 1974

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...944914,00.html

It's "moronic" to "preach to the sheep" or to "assume" anything at this point, considering the planet has been here for a few billion years. Remember... Dinosaurs roamed the Earth for over 200 million years and it was alot warmer when they ruled the planet, then the planet experienced multiple ice ages. What warmed the planet back then to melt the ice...? I'll tell you.. it's called a "planetary cycle". It goes like this... ...warm...cold...warm...cold...warm...cold, etc. That is fact.

Not saying the invasion of Iraq was completely unjustified. I just think the subsequent occupation and experiment in nation building has done grievous harm to our military readiness.

Now we can't respond properly to a real emergency, and our efforts in Afghanistan - against the real al-Qaeda, not some "al-Qaeda in Iraq" that was created by our presence there - are very seriously hampered. We have to go begging to NATO for troops and equipment because of the disaster in Iraq. Had the president and Mr. Rumsfeld listened to General Shinseki prior to the invasion, this may not have happened.

Originally Posted by Mike Barham

Not saying the invasion of Iraq was completely unjustified. I just think the subsequent occupation and experiment in nation building has done grievous harm to our military readiness.

Now we can't respond properly to a real emergency, and our efforts in Afghanistan - against the real al-Qaeda, not some "al-Qaeda in Iraq" that was created by our presence there - are very seriously hampered. We have to go begging to NATO for troops and equipment because of the disaster in Iraq. Had the president and Mr. Rumsfeld listened to General Shinseki prior to the invasion, this may not have happened.

I agree...


But, my issues are when people use terms like... "half cocked" or "worst president in history" when it comes to Iraq and for that matter...other issues. Bush used the very same intelligence that Bill Clinton and Al Gore spoon fed the country...and world... for 8 years, the whole DNC backed both them as well. Democrats are nothing more than hypocrites... 95% of them anyway. They all seem to have selectivememoryloss disease.



As for the others issues... I guess past presidents who supported slavery or genocide against native americans or who was in charge and ushered in the great depression were pretty swell guys...

and when it comes to the topic of Global Warming... that's my pet peeve. This article was released today... Feb. 26th, 2008

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/...html?id=332289

Of course, Obama has said that he... if elected... will end Global Warming. What an idiot... That's like me saying... I have the power to cool the sun. Of course people buy into the hype. And until all the data is in...from both sides, it's just that... hype.

Originally Posted by Mike Barham

Now we can't respond properly to a real emergency, and our efforts in Afghanistan - against the real al-Qaeda, not some "al-Qaeda in Iraq" that was created by our presence there - are very seriously hampered. We have to go begging to NATO for troops and equipment because of the disaster in Iraq. Had the president and Mr. Rumsfeld listened to General Shinseki prior to the invasion, this may not have happened.

+1

For years there has been a draw down on US military personnel and resources.

Putting aside the debate justifying our commitments in the 'Stans and Iraq, I fear for our military capacity to adequately support a third theater of operations. Should a new threat emerge, a redeployment of troops would weaken our existing commitments - putting our sons and daughters serving there at greater risk.

Unfortunately, I have yet to hear of any candidate supporting increasing military funding. If you need the cash... eliminate attachment of earmarks to bills in the federal budget.

Originally Posted by submoa

I fear for our military capacity to adequately support a third theater of operations. Should a new threat emerge, a redeployment of troops would weaken our existing commitments - putting our sons and daughters serving there at greater risk.

Agreed. As it sits now, we could respond to a naval threat, but pretty much anything requiring a substantial (and I mean more than a few brigades) commitment of ground forces would be almost impossible to sustain.

We have fairly sizable forces in Europe and South Korea. If we aren't going to seriously increase the size of the active-duty Army and Marine Corps, we need to think about moving those troops. The Koreans have been leaning on us for sixty years. As much as I like the Koreans, it's time to stop sending that welfare check.

I have yet to hear of any candidate supporting increasing military funding.

To give the devil his due, Sen. McCain has been agitating for some time to increase the size of the active ground components.

Originally Posted by Mike Barham

Not saying the invasion of Iraq was completely unjustified. I just think the subsequent occupation and experiment in nation building has done grievous harm to our military readiness.

I'm not sure what the alternative would be. If we had invaded and then said oops no WMD's time to go. I have to believe that would have accomplished absolutely nothing or worse. I agree with JS that our intelligence pointed to Sadam having WMD's (he said so himself) and as such an exporter of terror.

I am not an ardent supporter of President Bush by any stretch of the imagination, I think his immigration policy is a farce and his latest revelation on global warming is just knuckling under to the libs. History judges all presidents and if we look at the last 5: Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush I'd rate him second in that group.

Mike a point of technicality an Embassy is considered American soil. I also have a hard time making a differentiation between terrorism and an act of war when our military is attacked while we are at peace. I guess that is just another technical point but I know regardless it pi$$es me off.

Originally Posted by Fred40

I would have taken us into Afghanistan......period. Certainly Iraq would have been on the radar.......much as North Korea would have been also. But, without clear evidence of WMD's in Iraq I would not have taken out Hussein (Even though he deserved it). When you are the President of the United States you can't just go off half cocked. Half Cocked should be Bush's nickname.

The war in Iraq only BEGINS my problems with Bush. He's a moron plain and simple. The guy does not have a clue on diplomacy. He's dumber than a 5th grader when it comes to modern science. Stem Cell Research was a big peeve of mine......he has cost many lives from that fiasco. Agreeing that "Intelligent Design" should be taught in science classes ("cough" "moron" "cough"). Denying that Global Warming is a reality.......not that I have any answers there, and I'm not even saying people are totally responsible for it... but denying it exists is moronic. The list goes on.....

And to the gentleman who asked for facts not opinion I say

This is all about opinion. I have my reasons (some of which are stated above) for my opinion.

I guess I'm a moron.

Originally Posted by TerryP

I'm not sure what the alternative would be. If we had invaded and then said oops no WMD's time to go. I have to believe that would have accomplished absolutely nothing or worse. I agree with JS that our intelligence pointed to Sadam having WMD's (he said so himself) and as such an exporter of terror.

I think leaving in 2004 would have been better than staying. Yes, Iraq would have descended into some period of barbarity and anarchy, but it did anyway, and perhaps the barbarity and anarchy (and, yes, "ethnic cleansing") would have resulted in some stable political settlement. Maybe it would have even resulted in the three-state partition that I think is the only long-term solution for Iraq. And it probably would have been better for American security, since our military would not have been ground down and pinned in one strategically irrelevant nation.

I recognize that this is not the way we as Americans like to leave countries that we invade, but in the interests of our long-term security, it would have been a better course. Now we have a beaten up military stuck in a country that means precious little to our overall security picture. Meanwhile, we cannot finish the fight in Afghanistan, China is building a very powerful force, Iran is rattling its saber, and we still have to defend Korea. But we are paralyzed because we think in terms of dime-store aphorisms like "we broke it, we bought it" and "cut and run."

In terms of overall American security, Iraq was better with Saddam Hussein in charge. Regrettably, we didn't know it because our HUMINT capabilities were so degraded, mainly because of President Clinton. But we had Hussein's ambitions contained with a small and easily sustainable force.

Mike a point of technicality an Embassy is considered American soil.

Good point. I hadn't considered that angle.

Originally Posted by Mike Barham

To give the devil his due, Sen. McCain has been agitating for some time to increase the size of the active ground components.

That would be in Iraq only. He only recognizes that the military force we have in Iraq is inadequate.

No candidate acknowledges the fact that our military strength is inadequate to deal with a new front in addition to our existing commitments.

In so far my opinion of the Iraq war is concerned, it should have been partitioned in 2004 into three states: Kurdistan, a Sunni homeland and a Shiite homeland. The US should have been replaced with UN peacekeepers that includes Saudis (to lend needed Islamic flavor). After the predictable invasion by Iran, we would be supporting the UN to defend Iraq and have the moral pretext we need to go into Iran to kick out the fundamentalists.

The biggest argument against this plan is that it doesn't guarantee a US, or more to the point Halliburton, monopoly on rebuilding Iraq.

Military force works best for regime change and sucks in occupation. Its the UN's job to nation build.

Originally Posted by submoa

That would be in Iraq only. He only recognizes that the military force we have in Iraq is inadequate.

Uhhh, no. While he does back the Surge, these are from www.johnmccain.com:

"John McCain believes we must enlarge the size of our armed forces to meet new challenges to our security."

"John McCain thinks it is especially important to increase the size of the Army and Marine Corps to defend against the threats we face today."

And from his mouth in an interview with National Review:

"Just one other thing. I’ve been saying for a long time that we have to increase the size of the Army and Marine Corps. I say that as an old Navy man."

Source: http://article.nationalreview.com/?q...zQ1NjQ=&w=MQ==

Originally Posted by Mike Barham

[I]"John McCain believes we must enlarge the size of our armed forces to meet new challenges to our security."

I stand corrected. McCain sucks less, but fails to cross the suck/not suck barrier for me not to feel nauseous should I choose to vote for him.

Originally Posted by submoa

I stand corrected. McCain sucks less, but fails to cross the suck/not suck barrier for me not to feel nauseous should I choose to vote for him.

Heh, I didn't say I was going to vote for him. I think in some ways he is less tolerable that the Democrats, especially on First and Fourth Amendment issues.

Originally Posted by Mike Barham

I think in some ways he is less tolerable that the Democrats, especially on First and Fourth Amendment issues.

Amen to that.