Give a Legitimate Argument For McCain, Against Obama - Page 10 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 02-23-2008, 08:19 AM   #136
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,615
Local Time: 06:12 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Zoomerang96


i'm sorry, but in almost everything, experience is massive.

why can that not be used in this thread?
This is talked about in five threads or so, and always there is call for discussing the actual political programs.
Now we have a thread focussing on actual programs of the two likely contender, and suddenly everyone is emphasizing on the importance of experience and that it can't be left out.

Quote:
Originally posted by MadelynIris

Can we really change the middle east to sort of a modern western way of thinking? Iraq would be our best shot at this moment.
Did it every occur to you that the people of Iraq, or the neighbouring countries, might not be too much interested in that, and more over, are not interested in getting told by the US on how to develop? That's exactly the "US hegemony" that has dragged on the US's reputation for so long, and not only in the Middle East.

Quote:
Originally posted by MadelynIris


Peace Corps is cheap no? Seriously, why do we assume we'd have the same level of deployement/cost model that whole time? I don't want to bring up the Japan/Germany model, but economic aid that promotes social and idealogical change, while protecting, as much as possible, against a reversing of progress.
That's not very comparable. In both Japan and Germany the US has just bases and training ranges. They don't have to watch their back and fear the German or Japanese citizens.
I don't see such a safe state established in Iraq in the medium term.
Additionally, in Germay, and probably in Japan as well, the US bases don't have to be entirely self-provisioning. The bases in Germany get supplied with meat, eggs and dairy products from Denmark, due to decade old contracts, and bakery stuff supplied by German bakeries from those cities. Most of the non-military stuff has been outsourced. Since Spetember 11 security has been massively increased, though to a large extent with help from German Bundeswehr or private contractors such as Securitas. But Securitas is a security company, not a private military company.
Hence, costs of operating bases here, or in Japan, are in no way comparable to costs operating bases in Iraq, and that won't change too much over the next decades. If you look how long such "wars" can go on, and how expensive they become, I don't think Iraq will be all that different than e.g. Palestine for Israel, or Northern Ireland for England (in that comparison, rather much worse).

Additionally, in both Germany and Japan there was no such need for an ideological change. That's not comparable. Social change as well, wasn't needed that much.
__________________

__________________
Vincent Vega is offline  
Old 02-23-2008, 08:48 AM   #137
Refugee
 
MadelynIris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Craggy Island
Posts: 1,504
Local Time: 12:12 AM
Look, I agree with you all that it's a complicated mess.

But, all I'm repeating here, is a doctrine that the US has had since post WWII. Spread democracy and economic freedom (yes, capitalism).

Should we continue to do that?

Is the spread of fundamental islam a real threat to the US? Kind of like communism? Will it threaten our state?

Is there a reason to do this?

Melon, Vega, BVS, I understand that fundamental islamist do not want to start democratic elections, promote a free economy, etc... Obviously.

But should we try and influence them? Or fend them off at our borders sometime in the future.

Please don't nick pick (not all islam is extremist, and this argument doesn't care how the war was started etc...) Do we have any reason at all to try and change Iraq today? Or do we retreat back to a leze faire thing and beef up homeland security?

Is there a problem? Does turning Iraq represent a solution to the problem, or a deepening of it? Can you start a chain reaction of the 'american way' or will we piss them off so bad, that...

Even if we do turn Iraq, will that keep Al Queida from trying to light up NYC?

I say with troops on the ground, and incremental progress made, the next decision (obama, mccain or whomever) is going to be crucial to the US for the next 50 years.
__________________

__________________
MadelynIris is offline  
Old 02-23-2008, 09:05 AM   #138
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,615
Local Time: 06:12 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by MadelynIris

Melon, Vega, BVS, I understand that fundamental islamist do not want to start democratic elections, promote a free economy, etc... Obviously.
I would say it's important to stress that it's not only the fundamentalists who might not "want to start democratic elections, promote a free economy, etc.", but also often moderate Muslims.

Additionally, a free economy in the American sense is a country engaging in free trade and liberalised markets. A policy the World Bank and the IMF are dictating their debtors for decades now, but in cases of weaker economies about the most devastating they can do.
In my opinion, one policy that has to end immediately.
We have to deal with Islamic fundamentalism, and try to overcome it. But I think in that respect McCain's hawkish foreign policy model is rather establishing the opposite. In many of those countries the US does not have the reputation of being a country that is interested in their well being, but in them being suppliers to the American prosperity, with the aforementioned fear of US hegemony. And the US, at the moment, is doing much to consolidate that perception.
__________________
Vincent Vega is offline  
Old 02-23-2008, 09:32 AM   #139
Refugee
 
MadelynIris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Craggy Island
Posts: 1,504
Local Time: 12:12 AM
Ok. I get it. What's the solution?
__________________
MadelynIris is offline  
Old 02-23-2008, 10:18 AM   #140
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,615
Local Time: 06:12 AM
Good question. Definitely one worth a dissertation.
For a term paper I'm currently writing I'm reading some works by Richard B. Freeman, a professor of Economics from Harvard, and to use some quotes of him, though made in another context: "In what follows, I offer some candidate proposals [...]. I emphasize their 'candidate' status. Excepting radio talk show hosts, nobody claims certainty about what new policies we need." and "Consider my suggested strategies, then, as an invitation to that debate. I think they make sense - otherwise I wouldn't make them - but of course you may disagree. Don't leave it there, however. If you disagree, say why. And if you think you've got a better suggestion, get it on the table. Let the argument begin about how we as a nation might alleviate the new inequality that threatens us."

This is from his book The New Inequality - Creating Solutions for Poor America, published in 1999.
Though it deals with another problem, and another question on how to solve that problem, I think it fits perfectly the problems and questions we are facing now. And too often I miss the willingness to discuss issues on a basis of no certainty among politicans and experts. And I feel sad that today all too often those arguments quickly faint, and all parties just come up with polemic nonsense, such as: "If you are not with us, you are against us." or "If you don't support this, you are not American." (Though both quotes from the Neocons, I wouldn't go as far as to say the "left" isn't using the same kind of "arguments", but that's the only ones that came to mind).
So, in my opinion this quote can be transferred to the actual discussion, and I think trying to find solutions to this complex issue we really need to discuss this on a level where everybody is willing to listen to the other.
The question "What's the solution?" cannot really be answered, but it has to be tried.
But in my opinion, attacking country after country and not critically questioning the actions the US are currently undertaking have so far proven as to be not solving anything. The perception and reputation of the US has suffered so far, and that not only in the Middle East.
__________________
Vincent Vega is offline  
Old 02-23-2008, 10:51 AM   #141
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 12:12 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by financeguy


I reserve the right to call Hillary a cold hearted bitch, and Bush a stupid prick, any time I feel like it....would you honestly have objected if someone said something 10 times as bad regarding, say, Ann Coulter?


in this context, the use of "bitch" was absolutely no better than "nigger" "faggot" "kyke" or "jap."

you can call Hillary whatever you damn please, but if we're going to resort to slurs instead of actual arguments, expect to be called out on it.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 02-23-2008, 10:51 AM   #142
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 12:12 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by MadelynIris
Iraq for 50 for sho. Hopefully not 100. And I'm talking social and economic reform, with the backing of a military presence.

Can we really change the middle east to sort of a modern western way of thinking? Iraq would be our best shot at this moment.


tell me, why aren't we still in Vietnam?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 02-23-2008, 11:43 PM   #143
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 12:12 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2isthebest


He wants to stay in Iraq for 100 more years. He feels that what we've done has worked in most areas. Once again, experience clearly does not equal judgment. His strategy for Iraq is absolutely ridiculous. Sending more troops will not help the situation. We've already sent soldiers over for more tours of duty than they should serve. We don't have enough body armor and equipment to protect the troops already there. More information on that is in this article.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion...our-view_x.htm
I am so tired of seeing this posted - Not just by you, but it is not true of his position.

FactCheck.org has this to say about the misrepresentation by the Democratic pary:

[Q]A 100-Year War?


The DNC's message portrays McCain as bent on fighting an "endless" war in Iraq.

DNC: We can't afford four more years with a President who fights an endless war in Iraq. ... On the war, McCain scoffed at Bush's call to leave troops in Iraq for 50 years, saying "Make it a hundred!"

That of course is a serious distortion of what McCain actually said to a town-hall meeting in New Hampshire back on Jan. 3. His actual words are posted in a video on YouTube. Far from advocating "endless war," he said the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq would be "fine with me" provided that they're not being killed or wounded. Here's the full quote:

McCain, Jan. 3: Make it a hundred. ... We’ve been in Japan for 60 years. We’ve been in South Korea for 50 years or so. That would be fine with me, as long as American, as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. It’s fine with me and I hope it would be fine with you if we maintained a presence in a very volatile part of the world where al Qaeda is training, recruiting and equipping and motivating people every single day.

It should be noted that both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, despite their frequent talk of withdrawing from Iraq, have said repeatedly that they would maintain at least some troops in a combat role in Iraq for some time, possibly their entire term of office.


There's little doubt that McCain is less eager than either Clinton or Obama to bring troops home without further suppression of insurgent attacks. But it's a rank falsehood for the DNC to accuse McCain of wanting to wage "endless war" based on his support for a presence in Iraq something like the U.S. role in South Korea.
[/Q]

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2...e_smeared.html
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 02-23-2008, 11:49 PM   #144
ONE
love, blood, life
 
U2isthebest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Vision over visibility....
Posts: 12,332
Local Time: 01:12 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox


I am so tired of seeing this posted - Not just by you, but it is not true of his position.

FactCheck.org has this to say about the misrepresentation by the Democratic pary:

[Q]A 100-Year War?


The DNC's message portrays McCain as bent on fighting an "endless" war in Iraq.

DNC: We can't afford four more years with a President who fights an endless war in Iraq. ... On the war, McCain scoffed at Bush's call to leave troops in Iraq for 50 years, saying "Make it a hundred!"

That of course is a serious distortion of what McCain actually said to a town-hall meeting in New Hampshire back on Jan. 3. His actual words are posted in a video on YouTube. Far from advocating "endless war," he said the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq would be "fine with me" provided that they're not being killed or wounded. Here's the full quote:

McCain, Jan. 3: Make it a hundred. ... We’ve been in Japan for 60 years. We’ve been in South Korea for 50 years or so. That would be fine with me, as long as American, as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. It’s fine with me and I hope it would be fine with you if we maintained a presence in a very volatile part of the world where al Qaeda is training, recruiting and equipping and motivating people every single day.

It should be noted that both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, despite their frequent talk of withdrawing from Iraq, have said repeatedly that they would maintain at least some troops in a combat role in Iraq for some time, possibly their entire term of office.


There's little doubt that McCain is less eager than either Clinton or Obama to bring troops home without further suppression of insurgent attacks. But it's a rank falsehood for the DNC to accuse McCain of wanting to wage "endless war" based on his support for a presence in Iraq something like the U.S. role in South Korea.
[/Q]

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2...e_smeared.html
You're right in saying that it is an exaggeration for him wanting to maintain a war-like state there for 100 years. However, he has no intention of bringing the troops home anytime soon. I've read his Iraq policy straight from his website and he wants to send more troops over there if he wins.
__________________
U2isthebest is offline  
Old 02-23-2008, 11:50 PM   #145
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,297
Local Time: 12:12 AM
Are you equally as bothered by McCain blatantly distorting Obama's position on Pakistan?

Obama:

Quote:
"If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and [Pakistani] President Pervez Musharraf won't act, we will."
McCain:

Quote:
"Or will we risk the confused leadership of an inexperienced candidate who once suggested invading our ally, Pakistan"
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 02-23-2008, 11:51 PM   #146
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 12:12 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram


Kind of hard to promise something when you admit you don't really understand the economy:



What a dumb, DUMB thing to say. Watch for it in every Dem ad this fall.
That was not the exact quote - But it is nice to see the Democratic Party talking points put out there so effectively.

FactCheck.org :

[Q]The DNC's Glass House

The DNC also throws some stones at McCain that could be hurled at their own leading candidates.

Economics: The DNC paints McCain as untrained to run the economy: "McCain has said: 'I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues. I still need to be educated.' " That's an accurate quote. But while McCain wasn't trained as an economist, neither were Obama or Clinton. Clinton has touted her experience working for children and health care. Obama talks about his experience organizing the poor and low-income workers in Chicago. None of the three senators sit on the Finance Committee, the Banking Committee or the Budget Committee. We'll be interested to hear the DNC explain how a graduate of Harvard or Yale law schools is any better educated about economics or the economy than an Annapolis grad who has been in Congress longer than the two Democrats put together. [/Q]


http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2...e_smeared.html

No the Greenspan's Book line, is a very humorous one. Shows the candidate has a sense of humor. But, out of context and in the wrong hands...well it makes for good cannon fodder.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 02-23-2008, 11:53 PM   #147
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 12:12 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram
Are you equally as bothered by McCain blatantly distorting Obama's position on Pakistan?

Obama:



McCain:

Of course I am. And I have not picked my candidate yet. I have stated my admiration for both of them.

But I would say based on your posts, I would be hard pressed to find less bias.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 02-23-2008, 11:55 PM   #148
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 12:12 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2isthebest


You're right in saying that it is an exaggeration for him wanting to maintain a war-like state there for 100 years. However, he has no intention of bringing the troops home anytime soon. I've read his Iraq policy straight from his website and he wants to send more troops over there if he wins.
None of the candiates will be bringing the troops home anytime soon.

And more troops may be necessary for the short term.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 02-23-2008, 11:55 PM   #149
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,297
Local Time: 12:12 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox


Of course I am. And I have not picked my candidate yet. I have stated my admiration for both of them.

But I would say based on your posts, I would be hard pressed to find less bias.
I don't have admiration for both of them.

I don't believe McCain is a man of principles. I've said it many times. Never claimed anything else. In fact, I'd rather have voted for Romney than him.
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 02-23-2008, 11:57 PM   #150
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 12:12 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram


I don't have admiration for both of them.

I don't believe McCain is a man of principles. I've said it many times. Never claimed anything else. In fact, I'd rather have voted for Romney than him.

So I guess spreading inaccuracies will somehow make the judgement easier for the sheep?
__________________

__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:12 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com