USA Presidential Politics - 2008

[StewartG]

Originally Posted by Just Lucky

It was afterall the most equal of all comrades, Stewart who posted the Moveon ad. We must fight for our proletarian ideals. We are the vanguard of the revolution.

1. Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
2. Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
3. No animal shall wear clothes.
4. No animal shall sleep in a bed.
5. No animal shall drink alcohol.
6. No animal shall kill any other animal.
7. All animals are equal.

AND DON'T YOU FORGET IT!

[horizon200]

Originally Posted by AndrewII

The problem is it implies that McCain wants to fight for 100 years and I thought Obama was suppost to be above half truths.

More pandering to the emotions of the American voter. You can easily take this to the next level...how long do we have a military force that will...who'd of thunk it...require our sons and daughters to be in harm's way. The deterence factor that a military brings by nature suggests they may have to fight and die.

I've said it before and I'll say it again...I didn't agree with going into Iraq...but, what McCain is saying is essentially, we are there...if we set a timetable for withdrawal and leave the area to what ever happens we are liable to be back in before we know it. So, it is imperative we now make it a stable environment that can protect and govern itself. That may take a while...it will most likely mean more lives. it truely is a case of the ends justifies the means in this case...not that it justifies why the war was started. I think we've argued that one enough. But we are there...to make an exit, we need to make sure there will be a future for the Iraqi people...If we just up and leave, we will not be doing that.

[Just Lucky]

Originally Posted by horizon200

More pandering to the emotions of the American voter. You can easily take this to the next level...how long do we have a military force that will...who'd of thunk it...require our sons and daughters to be in harm's way. The deterence factor that a military brings by nature suggests they may have to fight and die.

I've said it before and I'll say it again...I didn't agree with going into Iraq...but, what McCain is saying is essentially, we are there...if we set a timetable for withdrawal and leave the area to what ever happens we are liable to be back in before we know it. So, it is imperative we now make it a stable environment that can protect and govern itself. That may take a while...it will most likely mean more lives. it truely is a case of the ends justifies the means in this case...not that it justifies why the war was started. I think we've argued that one enough. But we are there...to make an exit, we need to make sure there will be a future for the Iraqi people...If we just up and leave, we will not be doing that.

I am having some bizarre difficulties posting Washington Post links. I'll try again. washingtonpost.com

That should be a link to a column by David Ignatius about a proposed withdrawal from Iraq. I think Obama's plan has enough wiggle room in it to fit this scenario. It supposes the type of withdrawal many of our best thinkers have been saying may be our best strategic move in the region.

[sctx]

Originally Posted by Just Lucky

I heard tell he went to one o' those big city,fancy pants, yankee colleges. That'll learn ya.

well, they sure did a nice job of teachin him how to run away

[StewartG]

Originally Posted by horizon200

More pandering to the emotions of the American voter. You can easily take this to the next level...how long do we have a military force that will...who'd of thunk it...require our sons and daughters to be in harm's way. The deterence factor that a military brings by nature suggests they may have to fight and die.

I disagree with your post because you are addressing TWO separate issues.

The part that I've bolded above - I think its an illogical argument, and here's why.

The point is not whether or not we should have a strong and robust military, rather, the point is what we are going to do about Iraq and how long we want to stay. I don't think ANYONE on the right or the left doubts the need for a strong military force, well equipped, and with high morale. But your argument mixes apples and oranges. It does not make sense to counter those who want the US out of Iraq with the sort of argument that you make about just going ahead and weakening the military.

I don't see any evidence that Obama wants a weak military. On the contrary, I think most experts agree that after we have withdrawn from Iraq and are rested and re-equipped, we will have a FAR, FAR stronger military force than we do now during this massive occupation.

In fact... One could make the argument that it is the REPUBLICANS who are trying to weaken our military and send a message of weakness to the world.

By insisting on keeping a massive presence in Iraq, we are essentially telling the rest of the world - we are WILLING to spread ourselves too thin, militarily, and we are willing to keep it that way for a long, long time! What kind of message does THAT send to our enemies who are looking for a moment of weakness to contemplate attacking us? What kind of message does THAT send to our allies who may be looking to us for protection?

[Mr Cancun]

Originally Posted by StewartG

I disagree with your post because you are addressing TWO separate issues.

The part that I've bolded above - I think its an illogical argument, and here's why.

The point is not whether or not we should have a strong and robust military, rather, the point is what we are going to do about Iraq and how long we want to stay. I don't think ANYONE on the right or the left doubts the need for a strong military force, well equipped, and with high morale. But your argument mixes apples and oranges. It does not make sense to counter those who want the US out of Iraq with the sort of argument that you make about just going ahead and weakening the military.

I don't see any evidence that Obama wants a weak military. On the contrary, I think most experts agree that after we have withdrawn from Iraq and are rested and re-equipped, we will have a FAR, FAR stronger military force than we do now during this massive occupation.

In fact... One could make the argument that it is the REPUBLICANS who are trying to weaken our military and send a message of weakness to the world.

By insisting on keeping a massive presence in Iraq, we are essentially telling the rest of the world - we are WILLING to spread ourselves too thin, militarily, and we are willing to keep it that way for a long, long time! What kind of message does THAT send to our enemies who are looking for a moment of weakness to contemplate attacking us? What kind of message does THAT send to our allies who may be looking to us for protection?

Which enemies are you talking about ?

[ryberg]

Originally Posted by Mr Cancun

Which enemies are you talking about ?

Well Stewart can speak for himself, of course, but I'll hazard a guess, here: the ones that we have a military to defend ourselves from in the first place?

Steve

[ryberg]

Stretched dangerously thin -- I remember that coming up in a NewsHour discussion not long ago at all (April):

MARK SHIELDS: I think we're delusional, we, the United States, are delusional. There's no way that we can stay there [= Iraq] for any kind of indefinite period.

JIM LEHRER: No matter what happens on the ground?

MARK SHIELDS: No matter what happens. I mean, the readiness of the United States military -- I'm talking about talking to military people. They know we're stretched thin to the point of breaking. It is that bad.

Right now, just as an example of what we're facing, three times as many moral waivers had to be given. A moral waiver is given when you're seeking a recruit. You don't want recruits with prison records or rap sheets.

Three times as many had to be given in 2007 as were given three years earlier. Those are people who've committed multiple misdemeanors and/or a felony. And we had the lowest percentage of high school graduates enroll, enlist in 2007 we had in 25 years.

And the reality is this, that if you're not a high school graduate, one half of them don't complete, by the Pentagon's own studies, don't complete basic training. I mean, so when we're giving $40,000 bonuses to enlistees . . .

It goes on from there, but that's the part I was remembering. Kinda supports exactly the point Stewart is making...

Steve

[Playa del Soul]

Originally Posted by StewartG

What kind of message does THAT send to our allies who may be looking to us for protection?

Like, Iraq, for example.

Seeing as al Qaeda tried to take us on in Iraq, and now has been beaten into a bloody pulp, the world is safer for us being there. I don't know what you think military men do in between wars, but they are usually based somewhere besides their homes. Just add Iraq to the list of countries where they will be based. Smack dab in the middle of the Middle East, ready to respond to any threat, quickly.

Not much American military action going on in Iraq, these days. Mostly it is Iraqi forces who, for example, ran the insurgents out of Basra. Something the British could not accomplish after 4 years.

Obama and his supporters are basing their Iraq policy on the realities of two years ago. Even the Washington Post recognizes that and has twice called for Obama to present a new plan, based on current conditions. Instead, we hear the same refrains about how we should never have gone and nothing on the reality that the surge has worked, al Qaeda in Iraq is dead and many of those who were fighting against us have decided it is futile and have joined the government. Hear anything more on those "benchmarks" the Dems were always whining about? No? That is because they are all in place. No need bringing that fact into the public discourse, is there?

[StewartG]

Originally Posted by Mr Cancun

Which enemies are you talking about ?

Well, any enemies for which our military is supposed to be used to defend ourselves against!

[StewartG]

Originally Posted by ryberg

Well Stewart can speak for himself, of course, but I'll hazard a guess, here: the ones that we have a military to defend ourselves from in the first place?

Steve

Yeah, what he said!

[StewartG]

Originally Posted by Welshly Squirt

Like, Iraq, for example.

Seeing as al Qaeda tried to take us on in Iraq, and now has been beaten into a bloody pulp, the world is safer for us being there. I don't know what you think military men do in between wars, but they are usually based somewhere besides their homes. Just add Iraq to the list of countries where they will be based. Smack dab in the middle of the Middle East, ready to respond to any threat, quickly.

Not much American military action going on in Iraq, these days. Mostly it is Iraqi forces who, for example, ran the insurgents out of Basra. Something the British could not accomplish after 4 years.

Obama and his supporters are basing their Iraq policy on the realities of two years ago. Even the Washington Post recognizes that and has twice called for Obama to present a new plan, based on current conditions. Instead, we hear the same refrains about how we should never have gone and nothing on the reality that the surge has worked, al Qaeda in Iraq is dead and many of those who were fighting against us have decided it is futile and have joined the government. Hear anything more on those "benchmarks" the Dems were always whining about? No? That is because they are all in place. No need bringing that fact into the public discourse, is there?

201 of America's finest young men and women have been killed in action in Iraq in the first half of this year. That is 201 families that would like to slap you in the face for making such an asinine and disrespectful comment in order to make a political point.

How many KIA this year in Europe? Japan? Korea?

I do not have an accurate count of grievous injuries, nor do I have an accurate count of arms and legs left by our soldiers in Iraq.

Don't you DARE say there "isn't much American military action" going on in Iraq Mark - its hideously disrespectful to families of those killed and the soldiers and their families who have suffered serious injuries.

Its a hot zone, and you know it. Americans are dying and being wounded there every day. We need to end that bloodbath.

America is not safer, you have no evidence to prove that. Furthermore, there is infinitely more anti-American sentiment throughout the Muslim world than their was prior to to the invasion. George W. Bush and this war is the greatest recruiting tool that al Queda has.

Sorry to say my friend, this argument about the Iraq war is one that you (and those who think like you) lost a long, long time ago. Y'all just don't realize it yet...

[horizon200]

Originally Posted by StewartG

I disagree with your post because you are addressing TWO separate issues.

The part that I've bolded above - I think its an illogical argument, and here's why.

The point is not whether or not we should have a strong and robust military, rather, the point is what we are going to do about Iraq and how long we want to stay. I don't think ANYONE on the right or the left doubts the need for a strong military force, well equipped, and with high morale. But your argument mixes apples and oranges. It does not make sense to counter those who want the US out of Iraq with the sort of argument that you make about just going ahead and weakening the military.

I don't see any evidence that Obama wants a weak military. On the contrary, I think most experts agree that after we have withdrawn from Iraq and are rested and re-equipped, we will have a FAR, FAR stronger military force than we do now during this massive occupation.

In fact... One could make the argument that it is the REPUBLICANS who are trying to weaken our military and send a message of weakness to the world.

By insisting on keeping a massive presence in Iraq, we are essentially telling the rest of the world - we are WILLING to spread ourselves too thin, militarily, and we are willing to keep it that way for a long, long time! What kind of message does THAT send to our enemies who are looking for a moment of weakness to contemplate attacking us? What kind of message does THAT send to our allies who may be looking to us for protection?

You have every right to disagree. But I think its a completely logical argument given the ad that you posted. The woman in the ad is holding her cute cuddly baby telling McCain he can't have him when he's old enough. From that, one can easily form the opinion that she does not want her son to get hurt. Any rational parent would want the same thing. Its also very easy to make the small leap that she does not want her son to join the military and possibly get hurt. now if everyone follwoed her lead where would we be? If she would have used some solid points in her argument it would have held more validity...but playing off the idea that her little boy will get hurt is just pandering to the emotions instead of giving a reasoned argument.

I don't recall saying anywhere that Obama wanted a weak military. I simply said that ad was emotionally charged and tried to explain what I think McCain meant by saying we might be there 100 years.

[ryberg]

Originally Posted by horizon200

...just pandering to the emotions instead of giving a reasoned argument.

Ah! You mean like McCain on the gas tax holiday. I gotcha. Or the stuff about Guantanamo and habeas. Or flag pins or Obama's pastor. Check!

Or a lot of the arguments from the conservative end, more broadly speaking, especially regarding national security and Iraq and so forth. Or the drive to make the election more about such issues -- still referencing 9/11 as much as possible! -- while people consistently say that it's more about the economy, of course because such issues are seen as playing more to McCain's strength, as opposed to economic issues or other such concerns.

You guys do realize that the economy way outranks Iraq as the focus of people's concerns, right?

I don't recall saying anywhere that Obama wanted a weak military.

I'm sure you wouldn't -- you're much too reasonable! But it's interesting to note that that is the focus of other viral email and blog and YouTube smear campaigns against Obama. I had a neighbor inform me that one a friend sent her one informing her that Obama wants to disband the US military entirely.

It's funny, I know, to think that any candidate would ever want to do such a thing. Funny until you remember that people believe that stuff, at least enough to pass it along for consideration, in this case. But it's really him -- right there in the video!

Like you said a while back about hoping to see a contest where both sides refrained from smears (or something along those lines -- can't remember your point exactly right now), I would like to see a contest where people didn't just pander to emotions instead of using reasoned arguments.

Ain't gonna hold my breath, though!

Steve

[Playa del Soul]

Originally Posted by StewartG

201 of America's finest young men and women have been killed in action in Iraq in the first half of this year. That is 201 families that would like to slap you in the face for making such an asinine and disrespectful comment in order to make a political point.

How many KIA this year in Europe? Japan? Korea?

I do not have an accurate count of grievous injuries, nor do I have an accurate count of arms and legs left by our soldiers in Iraq.

Don't you DARE say there "isn't much American military action" going on in Iraq Mark - its hideously disrespectful to families of those killed and the soldiers and their families who have suffered serious injuries.

Its a hot zone, and you know it. Americans are dying and being wounded there every day. We need to end that bloodbath.

America is not safer, you have no evidence to prove that. Furthermore, there is infinitely more anti-American sentiment throughout the Muslim world than their was prior to to the invasion. George W. Bush and this war is the greatest recruiting tool that al Queda has.

Sorry to say my friend, this argument about the Iraq war is one that you (and those who think like you) lost a long, long time ago. Y'all just don't realize it yet...

Don't lecture me, Stewart. You are the one who just used 200 deaths to make a political point, and only show concern for the military when it serves your political purpose (body counts, for example).

I stand by what I said. American military (combat) action in Iraq is down, to almost prewar levels. Iraqis have taken the lead and Americans are providing support. Even the mainstream press is reporting that.

The Iraqi Upturn - washingtonpost.com

Muslims are turning against al Qaeda for their actions against other Muslims.

How Muslim extremists are turning on Osama Bin Laden

But, seriously, keep insisting that the situation is the same as it was two years ago. Don't lose that "cut and run" plan you were so set on.