US 2008 Presidential Campaign/Debate Discussion Thread #6 - Page 39 - 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 07-12-2008, 08:53 PM   #571
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 03:46 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by maycocksean View Post
I'll let Irvine get into that, if he chooses to. My point was simply that I think he was aiming at you not Obama in that post.
I don't disagree, I don't believed it is justified.
__________________

__________________
deep is offline  
Old 07-12-2008, 08:56 PM   #572
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 06:46 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by deep View Post
It was gone before you replied, because I did think about it.


and I have read many of the things you have posted about your life experience

I have always said racism is at the top of the list of problems that still exist today.

I still support affirmative action and believe there is a real need for it today.

I bet many of Obama's young supporters do not.

I can appreciate from your vantage point, and even with overtly racist statements towards Obama, that every statement can be viewed from that lens.




Believe me, if a first term (elected in 2004) white Senator were the nominee and McCain was the GOP candidate, my vote would be floating back and forth, the same as it is now.

I will say that with Obama's pragmatic repositioning lately,
he is giving more confidence that he may be a decent president.
For the record, I've never ever believed that what might be termed your opposition to Obama has anything to do with race.
__________________

__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 07-12-2008, 09:22 PM   #573
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 03:46 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by maycocksean View Post
For the record, I've never ever believed that what might be termed your opposition to Obama has anything to do with race.
Thanks,

I do believe others have implied race was a consideration in my concerns with Obama.

We have interacted, you have read my posts
and I have read yours.

I feel we have a bit of a connection and understanding, and mutual respect.

Believe me, if Obama were elected in 2000 and got the nomination in 2004

I would have been writing checks and doing what I could to get him elected over Bush. His lack of experience would not matter against a GOP controlled Congress and the worst President I can remember.

I find the choice in 2008,
between McCain "the best the GOP has" with a heavily Democratic controlled congress
vs a decent new Senator with not much history to be more difficult.

I believe if McCain does win, he will flip- again to what has been his much longer. He has a record of being moderate, and with this heavily Democratic controlled congress that will be his only option.

I still expect Obama to win the election. The Obama I have seen the last couple of weeks is showing a little more nuance and thought than the candidate that was campaigning against Hillary.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 07-12-2008, 09:31 PM   #574
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 12:46 PM
A little more nuisance, eh?

ETA: corrected, nevermind
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 07-12-2008, 09:34 PM   #575
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 12:46 PM
While I am broadly supportive of Obama's campaign, I think it is quite cheap and unbecoming to accuse another poster of racism if they do not support Obama.
__________________
financeguy is offline  
Old 07-12-2008, 09:54 PM   #576
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 11:46 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by maycocksean View Post
Strongbow, could we just wrap this whole thing up by conceding that the 16 month timetable on Obama's website is not going to happen?
Well, provided John McCain is elected president in November, it will never happen. If Obama wins, I hope he abandons his timetable and many other thoughts and idea's on Iraq, and move to the policies of the Bush administration that have worked in Iraq. But Obama has yet to really "refine" his policy on withdrawal so it remains to be seen what will happen if he is elected President. The hope is that the Military and State Department will be able to convince him to follow a withdrawal plan that has as its prerequisite, a sustainable security environment on the ground. If Obama is elected, hopefully there will be a desire to not be known as the President who lost Iraq or messed up success there.

Quote:
I also never really believed that Obama was going to insist on a 16 month withdrawal.
But he has up to this point.


Quote:
The irony is you are depending on Obama being true to his word to make your case against him, while I am, perhaps, more cynically, expecting him to go back on his promise (which in my opinion was a politically expedient promise in the same league as "read my lips" that Obama really couldn't hope to keep) in making my case FOR him.

You, in your typically masterful and text-heavy way have created a no-win situation for Obama. Either he breaks his 16 month timetable promise and you can paint him in a variety of negative colors ("just another dihonest politician", "a foreign policy neophyte who had no idea what he was promising when he made that commitment" etc). Or he persists in standing by it and you can continue to point out how unreasonable and unworkable it is. Either way. . .you win.
Well, it would be a good thing if Obama abandoned many of his positions on Iraq and moved to something more in line with the Bush administrations position on Iraq. From the election standpoint, at this point, there would still be plenty of things McCain could take advantage of if Obama moves towards McCain on the issue. Obama is on the record as saying the Surge would not reduce violence that it would make it worse. He has supported starting an immediate withdrawal, without conditions on the ground being a prerequesite, for some time. While moving towards the Bush/McCain position on Iraq might get some voters to vote for him who are on the fence because of this issue, some liberals might become upset and independents might see it as showing that Obama is too inexperienced to be Commander And Chief.

Quote:
The timetable was predicated on the idea that an indefinite stay in Iraq would be bad for the U.S. and for Iraq. Most of us don't want to be in Iraq forever, and a timetable--even if it has to be readjusted multiple times--would help keep us moving in the right direction. This is the real difference which you consistently ignore (and I admit the Democrats political pandering assists you in this)--the difference between an approach of an indefinite 100-years stay in Iraq and an aggressive move to wrap things up there as soon as possible.
So what is Obama's timetable for Afghanistan? If having a timetable is so important to moving in the right direction, why doesn't Obama have a timetable for Afghanistan?

McCain's position is not to stay in Iraq indefinitely or for 100 years. His position like the Bush administration and the military is to withdraw from Iraq only when conditions on the ground warrent such a withdrawal. Thats his position on Afghanistan as well. Both countries must be rebuilt and developed to a degree that they can sustain such development on their own without the presence of US ground forces. It would not make sense for the United States to suddenly withdraw military forces from an area that is important to its security just because its that time of the month on the withdrawal timetable. You have to make sure that the area is first secure enough and can handle the withdrawal of such forces without it negatively impacting security and development.

Quote:
Also, you have not allowed the possiblity nor recognized the value in Obama being able to change his perspective or admit he was wrong. As Irvine has pointed out, it's exactly this quality that was lacking in the previous administration. If Obama is wrong about the 16 month withdrawal I should hope he should have the good sense to admit it and he shouldn't be excoriated for doing so.
If Obama wants to point out that he was wrong on this issue, that would be great. But voters need to clearly understand that McCain has been right on this vital national security issue, while Obama was wrong when deciding who to vote for in November.
__________________
Strongbow is offline  
Old 07-12-2008, 09:58 PM   #577
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 03:46 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by financeguy View Post
While I am broadly supportive of Obama's campaign, I think it is quite cheap and unbecoming to accuse another poster of racism if they do not support Obama.
sometimes it is an easy call

sometimes it is not

When someone says "I won't vote for a black person"

some in here have even posted that members of their own family have said that

Some make broad accusations that if Obama does not win it is because of 'racism'.

Well, I think one has to take into account that even by Democrat standards, McCain is a fairly decent and attractive candidate.

We can not escape race, we all have bias, the best we can do is try and identify it, and challenge it.


I believe there are many people that will not vote for Obama that would have voted for Colin Powell if given the chance.

The sad thing is that if Obama does not win, I can not think of a viable non-European candidate for the future. Presidential candidates are typically Governors or Senators.

Doug Wilder, Vir, Gov ran briefly in 1992, I believe.

Do we have any other people of color as Governors or Senators?

David Paterson? NY

Bobby Jindal? LA
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 07-12-2008, 10:26 PM   #578
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 12:46 PM
Well, Bill Richardson, then there's Deval Patrick in MA. And Sen. Inouye, though he's far too old to run for President. (ETA: whoops, forgot Sen. Akaka, also from HI, and also pretty old.)
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 07-12-2008, 11:22 PM   #579
Refugee
 
Bluer White's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Maine
Posts: 1,886
Local Time: 06:46 AM
On the Iraq issue. Given the 4000+ U.S. servicepeople and countless Iraqis who have lost their lives, the lack of WMD, is it too hard to admit Illinois state senator Obama was completely right on his position not to invade Iraq?

And since the U.S. committed to war, too hard to admit Senator McCain has been (mostly) right on the conduct of it, and that he's being proved right on the surge?


Nuance shumance!!! We all know objectively what their rhetoric has been for years, and our own rhetoric in this forum. It hasn't been all that nuanced. But I really hope the end strategy is something in between the perceived indefinite occupation versus the perceived quick withdrawal. The last week or two have encouraged me this will be the case with either candidate.
__________________
Bluer White is offline  
Old 07-13-2008, 01:29 AM   #580
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 06:46 AM
Oh. . .Strongbow. . .you're. . .you're a tricky one.

Careful about putting words in my mouth.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
Well, provided John McCain is elected president in November, it will never happen. If Obama wins, I hope he abandons his timetable and many other thoughts and idea's on Iraq, and move to the policies of the Bush administration that have worked in Iraq.
NOT what I was saying. I do believe there are other points of view beyond immediate withdrawal or moving to the policies of the Bush adminstration. Nice try though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
But he has up to this point.
And now he's "refining." Surprise, surprise.




Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
While moving towards the Bush/McCain position
Careful now. . .you might be playing into the hands of the Dems with this characterization of McCain's position on the war. My understanding is that McCain has gone to great lengths to distance himself from Bush's prosecution of/position on the war. But I'm sure you'll be able to tell me how that it is actually untrue and in fact Bush and McCain have been marching in lockstep towards victory ever since the war began.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
So what is Obama's timetable for Afghanistan? If having a timetable is so important to moving in the right direction, why doesn't Obama have a timetable for Afghanistan?
That's actually a reasonable question. At one point do the reasons we got in become irrelevant and the reasons to stay become paramount? Because, as we all know, this is why there has been less criticism of the war in Aghanistan. The reasons for going in were viewed as legit from the beginning. Such was NOT the case with Iraq. If it turned out that the 9/11 terrorists and Osama Bin Laden had actually been working out of say, Indonesia, and NOT Afghanistan you might here more noise about getting out of there.
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 07-13-2008, 01:36 AM   #581
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 06:46 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by deep View Post

I do believe others have implied race was a consideration in my concerns with Obama.
Mmmm. . maybe. But if so, not in the way that you're thinking at least from my POV.



Quote:
Originally Posted by deep View Post
I feel we have a bit of a connection and understanding, and mutual respect.
Indeed we do, though as I (and other posters) have stated, I have found the strength of your hostility to Obama puzzling and uncharacteristic, your explanation below notwithstanding.


Quote:
Originally Posted by deep View Post
Believe me, if Obama were elected in 2000 and got the nomination in 2004

I would have been writing checks and doing what I could to get him elected over Bush. His lack of experience would not matter against a GOP controlled Congress and the worst President I can remember.

I find the choice in 2008,
between McCain "the best the GOP has" with a heavily Democratic controlled congress
vs a decent new Senator with not much history to be more difficult.

I believe if McCain does win, he will flip- again to what has been his much longer. He has a record of being moderate, and with this heavily Democratic controlled congress that will be his only option.

I still expect Obama to win the election. The Obama I have seen the last couple of weeks is showing a little more nuance and thought than the candidate that was campaigning against Hillary.
but you do realize that many of your posts of late haven't had this even-handed quality right? Don't get me wrong. . .I'm not trying to tell you how you "should" post. You're free to say whatever you like in whatever manner you like (within the rules etc etc). I'm just making an observation is all.
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 07-13-2008, 01:38 AM   #582
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 06:46 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluer White View Post
On the Iraq issue. Given the 4000+ U.S. servicepeople and countless Iraqis who have lost their lives, the lack of WMD, is it too hard to admit Illinois state senator Obama was completely right on his position not to invade Iraq?

And since the U.S. committed to war, too hard to admit Senator McCain has been (mostly) right on the conduct of it, and that he's being proved right on the surge?


Nuance shumance!!! We all know objectively what their rhetoric has been for years, and our own rhetoric in this forum. It hasn't been all that nuanced. But I really hope the end strategy is something in between the perceived indefinite occupation versus the perceived quick withdrawal. The last week or two have encouraged me this will be the case with either candidate.
I could agree with both of the above, I think.
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 07-13-2008, 03:50 AM   #583
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 11:46 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by maycocksean View Post


I do believe there are other points of view beyond immediate withdrawal or moving to the policies of the Bush adminstration.
Well, Bush administration policy is withdrawal only when conditions on the ground warrent it. Obama's position at least until recently has been to start withdrawing immediately and complete that withdrawal within 16 months with no prerequisites to first be met as far as conditions on the ground. What point of view do you see as being beyond or between these two positions?


Quote:
Careful now. . .you might be playing into the hands of the Dems with this characterization of McCain's position on the war. My understanding is that McCain has gone to great lengths to distance himself from Bush's prosecution of/position on the war. But I'm sure you'll be able to tell me how that it is actually untrue and in fact Bush and McCain have been marching in lockstep towards victory ever since the war began.
McCain and Bush have agreed on policy at various times over the past 5 years as well as disagreeing. But the Surge was something that McCain had been pushing for, for some time and so its really Bush moving towards the McCain position which Obama may be starting to do as well given the obvious success.


Quote:
That's actually a reasonable question. At one point do the reasons we got in become irrelevant and the reasons to stay become paramount? Because, as we all know, this is why there has been less criticism of the war in Aghanistan. The reasons for going in were viewed as legit from the beginning. Such was NOT the case with Iraq. If it turned out that the 9/11 terrorists and Osama Bin Laden had actually been working out of say, Indonesia, and NOT Afghanistan you might here more noise about getting out of there.
The reason for both the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq have long since passed and are essentially irrelevant today. The United States is not currently in Iraq to remove Saddam from power and insure that all WMD has been removed and dismantled. Both objectives were accomplished years ago. The United States is not in Afghanistan to remove the Taliban from power and destroy Al Quada's base there. Both objectives were accomplished years ago. What now exist in both countries are vital nation building and counterinsurgency tasks. Its true that the Taliban still exist in some form in southern Afghanistan, and that the remnents of Al Quada and Bin Ladin live just across the border in Pakistan. But much of the fighting in Afghanistan is tribal and sectarian in nature and predates Al Quada's involvement in the country. Al Quada has actually been much more active in Iraq over the past years than it has been in Afghanistan or anywhere else for that matter.

Further US operations against Al Quada across the border in Pakistan are complicated by the fact that Pakistan has over the past 7 years captured hundreds of Al Quada members on its own, and the positioning of US forces in Pakistan could destabilize the country politically which is why US forces have not gone in and have tried to get the Pakistani military and government to do more counterinsurgency operations in Pakistans remote western border area's. US forces in the meantime have focused on rebuilding Afghanistan and creating an Afghan government and military that will one day have the capability to handle terrorist and insurgents on its own without US ground forces.

The reason for staying in both Iraq and Afghanistan are now the same. Both countries must be rebuilt and develop new security, political and economic structures and environments that will be sustainable and allow both countries to handle any internal problems they may face without the help of US ground forces.
__________________
Strongbow is offline  
Old 07-13-2008, 07:43 PM   #584
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 06:46 AM
I see now why Irvine gets drawn into these disputes with you.

You've always got these little...things...that you just KNOW you can counter. "Surely he'll have to see reason if I say this. . ." But it never happens.

I should not give in to temptation. It won't do any good. He's not even really listening. . .yes, I'm just gonna walk away. Not gonna reply.

butfirstletmesaythis!

A middle view between immediate withdrawal and an indefinite stay would be to consider whether whatever benefits might be gained for ourselves and the Iraqis by staying in Iraq are outweighed by the costs. Many of those who supported removing the troops felt that we were not really doing anything to help Iraq and were losing many of our own soldiers and stretching our military thin...to what purpose? If we're moving forward in Iraq then it makes sense to stay until the job is done. If we're just stuck and not going anywhere then it makes sense to get out. As to the success of the surge, I seem to recall saying on this very forum that I hoped I was wrong and I hoped that the surge would be successful. I can't say with authority how successful it has been or not, but the fact remains that getting out Iraq will not be easy or a quick process.

Let me add that most of the Democratic lawmakers, I've found to be rather weak in their stance on Iraq. Many of them voted for the war to appease the public and now many of them have tried to appease the public by hollering to get out and announcing timetables. Suffice it to say Obama's timetable is not one of my favorite things about him, just because I don't think it's ever been honest or realistic. But it does sound good to the voters, I guess.
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 07-13-2008, 10:06 PM   #585
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 11:46 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by maycocksean View Post


A middle view between immediate withdrawal and an indefinite stay would be to consider whether whatever benefits might be gained for ourselves and the Iraqis by staying in Iraq are outweighed by the costs. Many of those who supported removing the troops felt that we were not really doing anything to help Iraq and were losing many of our own soldiers and stretching our military thin...to what purpose? If we're moving forward in Iraq then it makes sense to stay until the job is done. If we're just stuck and not going anywhere then it makes sense to get out.


But one has to remember that for the United States, rebuilding and stabilizing Iraq is not just humanitarian mission, its one that is in the national security interest of the United States. Its not just a question of whether or not the United States is making progress and helping Iraq, its also the potential consequences for Iraq and the United States of a pre-mature withdrawal.

At points in time in Iraq, it may not have seemed that progress was being made, but what your not seeing either is the potential consequences of pulling out and those consequences go beyond just being humanitarian consequences. If your stuck and not going anywhere, progress is stalled, you may think about leaving, but then you have to deal with the cost and consequences of leaving, which in this case should convince one to stay.
__________________

__________________
Strongbow 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 06:46 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