US 2008 Presidential Campaign/Debate Discussion Thread - Part Catorce!

[Irvine511]

Originally posted by Strongbow




Not bad for a guy that was declared DONE, by nearly everyone in this forum just a couple of months ago.

he was done. he's the luckiest man in politics. he happened to be running against a wildly unqualified field of opponents. i think McCain is fully qualified to be president.

he's also wrong.



[q] Unlike Obama and Clinton, McCain has 50 years of experience in US national security and US foreign policy. Compare that to roughly 10 year of experience combined on these issues for both Obama and Clinton through their recent Senate runs. No one running for President in 2008 can even be compared to McCain in terms of his qualifications for President. [/q]


and if all these qualifications get us into more messes like Iraq, give us the stubbornness to say that we'll be there for 100 years, give us the foolishness to sing "bomb bomb Iran," and the casual "there will be more wars ...", then give me inexperience any day.

judgment always, ALWAYS trumps experience.

who was more experienced than Cheney and Rumsfeld? John McCain himself would fully agree -- since he's spent so much time and effort bashing the two of them in a very public way -- that their experience didn't tell them how to invade or occupy a country in the middle of the most volatile region in the world.

McCain would agree: judgment trumps exerience.

You don't want someone as Commander In Chief who is willing to sacrifice US and global security for short term political gain.

hilarious. because part of the blowback for Iraq was supposed to be a 2004 filled with "Welcome Home/Mission Accomplished" parades and $.50 a gallon gasoline.

Iraq was calculated on a political timetable.

[Strongbow]

Originally posted by Irvine511




it's rather plain-as-day obvious that the reason that these governments voted for 1441 was because it was precisely NOT an authorization to go to war.

and the real reason for the passing of Resolution 1483 was not to give a to the invasion, but rather to hold the US and the UK responsible for the mess created. the resolution made it clear the United States and Britain are defined as occupying forces and, according to the Geneva Conventions, occupation forces are responsible for providing not only security and safety, but also daily needs such as healthcare.

so, yeah, bang-up job there as well.

Its rather plain as day the way resolution 1441 was written and authored by the United States that it was an authorization for war and the idea that it wasn't is no different from the Soviet Unions opinion of resolution 678 in 1990 for the 1991 Gulf War.

The approval of resolution 1483 is the nail in the coffin on this idea that the war was illegal and without UN approval. Again, where is the attempt at a resolution condemning operation Iraqi Freedom? Where was the attempt on the first day of the war to pass a resolution calling for the cessessation of hostiliites? Where was the attempt at a resolution on the first day of the war calling for the coalition to withdraw back into Kuwait?

[Irvine511]

Originally posted by Strongbow


Its rather plain as day the way resolution 1441 was written and authored by the United States that it was an authorization for war and the idea that it wasn't is no different from the Soviet Unions opinion of resolution 678 in 1990 for the 1991 Gulf War.

The approval of resolution 1483 is the nail in the coffin on this idea that the war was illegal and without UN approval. Again, where is the attempt at a resolution condemning operation Iraqi Freedom? Where was the attempt on the first day of the war to pass a resolution calling for the cessessation of hostiliites? Where was the attempt at a resolution on the first day of the war calling for the coalition to withdraw back into Kuwait?

you see?

you didn't even address a single point. you just reiterated what you had previously said.

so, i rest.

[Strongbow]

Originally posted by Irvine511




you see?

you didn't even address a single point. you just reiterated what you had previously said.

so, i rest.

I clearly addressed both points demonstrating how their simply inaccurate with examples. You didn't see the UN passing a resolution approving Iraq's occupation of Kuwait did you?

[Irvine511]

Originally posted by Strongbow


I clearly addressed both points demonstrating how their simply inaccurate with examples. You didn't see the UN passing a resolution approving Iraq's occupation of Kuwait did you?

see, this ignores the issue here.

and it ignores things like nuance, like the US's rather unique stance in the world.

so it's impossible to have a discussion when one things that all things are equal. like Iraq and Afghanistan are the same thing.

[Strongbow]

Originally posted by Irvine511



he was done. he's the luckiest man in politics. he happened to be running against a wildly unqualified field of opponents. i think McCain is fully qualified to be president.

he's also wrong.

A rather typical answer when some pundits get it so wrong. It was all luck and it was actually very easy. Sure.

and if all these qualifications get us into more messes like Iraq, give us the stubbornness to say that we'll be there for 100 years, give us the foolishness to sing "bomb bomb Iran," and the casual "there will be more wars ...", then give me inexperience any day.

You need to go beyond the most trivial headlines in the media to begin to understand McCain's foreign policy.

judgment always, ALWAYS trumps experience.

Ones judgement though is impacted by their experience and McCain has 50 years of making the right judgements when it comes to fighting in war, surviving the most hostile conditions in prison, deciding on the right policies for this country as a congressman.

who was more experienced than Cheney and Rumsfeld? John McCain himself would fully agree -- since he's spent so much time and effort bashing the two of them in a very public way -- that their experience didn't tell them how to invade or occupy a country in the middle of the most volatile region in the world.

McCain bashes the two of them on how they handle the occupation, but not on the strategic decision to remove Saddam from power. While Cheney and Rumsfeld both made mistakes, they had far better Judgement than Obama on the issue, who would prefer to have Saddam in power threatening the Persian Gulf and the world in 2008.

hilarious. because part of the blowback for Iraq was supposed to be a 2004 filled with "Welcome Home/Mission Accomplished" parades and $.50 a gallon gasoline

Nope, it was to remove a serious threat to US national security interest after the failure to deal with Saddam in the 1990s and the erorsion of the containment regime developed in 1991. It had nothing to do with any liberal fantasy of some Republican election theme for 2004.

[diamond]

Originally posted by anitram
I think Mitt is actually an economic conservative, and prior to his so-called "evolution" (I don't really believe it and I think if he were not running in the US, he'd never have "evolved" on the topic of abortion and gay rights), he actually had reasonable stances. I disagree with the conservative philosophy but I do not find economic conservatives to be offensive per se; I even understand their positions. Unfortunately for Mitt, he cannot get elected in the US as a Republican without bashing gays and wanting the state between a woman's legs. If he could, he'd be running in the vein of Stephen Harper.

In the end, I find him less scary than McCain. Mitt is a slick businessman, you know what to expect from his type and he knows he's full of crap most of the time. McCain is more dishonest, running on some kind of straight talk express BS platform while he talks out of both sides of his mouth and frankly his foreign policy ideas "more wars! bomb Iran!" is insane.

That said, he'll win the nomination, and then I do believe he'll lose the election to either Dem candidate, which will finally put the nail in his presidential aspirations once and for all.

You might want to reevaluate Mitt's character after reading this story:

Romney To The Rescue

By: Ronald Kessler
NEWSMAX
Sunday, Apr 01, 2007
Mitt Romney was faced with a crisis in July 1996. The 14-year-old daughter of Robert Gay, a partner in Romney's new venture capital firm, Bain Capital, had disappeared. As it turned out, she had attended a rave party in New York City and had become high on ecstasy. Three days later, her distraught father had no idea where she was.

Romney took immediate action. He closed down the entire firm and asked all 30 partners and employees to fly to New York to try to find Gay's daughter.

Romney set up a command center in a conference room at the LaGuardia Marriott just outside Manhattan. He hired a private detective firm to assist with the search and established a toll-free number for tips, coordinating the effort with the New York City Police Department, but he still wasn't satisfied. He raced through his Rolodex and called everyone Bain did business with in New York. He asked them to help his company find their friend's missing daughter.

The company's accounting firm, PricewaterhouseCoopers, and its law firm, put up posters on street poles with a photo of the missing teenager. Cashiers at Duane Reade Pharmacies, which was owned by Bain Capital, put fliers in the bag of each shopper.

Romney and others from the Bain Capital posse trudged through every part of New York, even scouring Central Park, and talked with everyone they could - prostitutes, drug addicts - anyone who may have seen her. They also made rounds at the local nightclubs at 3 a.m., hoping someone somewhere could identify her.

The same day the Romney team came to New York, the hunt made the evening news. Television cameras showed photos of the girl and video of investment banker types prowling through Central Park.

The next day, a teenage boy she was with phoned in. He asked if there was a reward. But the boy got nervous and quickly hung up. Luckily, the police traced the call to a home in Montville Township, N.J.

Gay's daughter, when they found her in the basement of that home, was shivering through detox after a massive dose of ecstasy. Doctors later told Gay that he was indeed fortunate - his daughter probably would not have lasted another day.

"It was the most amazing thing, and I'll never forget this to the day I die," Gay says, adding of Romney's intervention, "I'm not sure we would have gotten her back without him."

It is often during a crisis that we gain insight into a person's real character. Romney's action demonstrated leadership, loyalty, and selflessness - attributes that Americans just might like to see in a president of the United States.

People say that Mitt Romney lights up a room. But there are all kinds of ways to light up a room - fluorescent, neon, sunlight, strobe. Romney alternates between sparkle and a warm, steady glow. He is not in your face. He is low-key, self-assured, and self-contained.

That could be a metaphor for Romney's candidacy. When the subject of the 2008 presidential election comes up, Republicans talk about the prospects of the obvious front-runners, Arizona Sen. John McCain and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani. But they often end the conversation by saying, "You know, I really like Mitt Romney."


------------------------

As far as gay rights, Mitt has been supportive of indivuals who are Gay, where he parts is on Gay marriage, he has Gays on his staff.

-----

The people who are supporting McCain are doing it out of fear; this is wrong.

As Guliani once led nationally and seemed to be the cat's meow, he eventually fell so shall McCain in the general election.



dbs

[Strongbow]

Originally posted by Irvine511



see, this ignores the issue here.

and it ignores things like nuance, like the US's rather unique stance in the world.

so it's impossible to have a discussion when one things that all things are equal. like Iraq and Afghanistan are the same thing.

It is the issue, but your simply unwilling to see it. The US's unique position in the world does not mean it has the right to do anything it wants and that it will get the stamp of approval from the UN no matter what. Again, if the UN thought the war was really illegal, why was their not a single attempt to condemn it on the day it started or to call for an end to hostilities? You either ignore or are unwilling to answer these simple factual questions.

Even Bill Clinton's national security expert on Iraq does not think the war was illegal, and neither did Bill Clinton or Hillary Clinton when the war started.

That France voiced a different opinion from their vote on the resolution is no different than what the Soviet Union did in 1990 in regards to resolution 678. Some people want to have their cake and eat it.

As far as Iraq and Afghanistan goes, there are many things that are fundamentaly similar. You disagree, but won't discuss it.

[Strongbow]

Originally posted by diamond




The people who are supporting McCain are doing it out of fear; this is wrong.

As Guliani once led nationally and seemed to be the cat's meow, he eventually fell so shall McCain in the general election.



dbs

No, I supported McCain over Bush in 2000. He is far more qualified for the job than anyone out there including Mitt Romney.

[Diemen]

Originally posted by Strongbow
Unlike Obama and Clinton, McCain has 50 years of experience in US national security and US foreign policy. Compare that to roughly 10 year of experience combined on these issues for both Obama and Clinton through their recent Senate runs.

On paper, Rumsfeld had all the experience you could ever want from a SecDef. And that's just one example. In my own work, I've known plenty of fellow managers who had extremely impressive resumes with years of experience, indeed many more than me, but turned out to be lousy managers with only a cursory grasp of the business and an inability to think on their feet or tackle complex issues in a rational manner.

Experience is meaningless without good judgment.

You don't want someone as Commander In Chief who is willing to sacrifice US and global security for short term political gain.

Yeah, instead we had someone like Bush who sacrificed US and global security in the hopes of long term political gain.

[diamond]

Originally posted by Strongbow


No, I supported McCain over Bush in 2000. He is far more qualified for the job than anyone out there including Mitt Romney.

The fellow has a selective memory, is volatile and appears shell shocked sometimes.

I think his years as a POW have clouded his judgment in the WOT.

Gitmo needs to stay open and waterboarding should never be taken off the table..Lives have been saved because of waterboarding.

McCains has mild dain braimage from Viet Nam.

Mitt has the highest IQ of any of the GOP candidates running.



dbs

[BVS]

Originally posted by diamond


Gitmo needs to stay open and waterboarding should never be taken off the table..Lives have been saved because of waterboarding.

If you say it enough, it may someday come true.

There are pots of gold at the end of rainbows, it's true.

Originally posted by diamond

Mitt has the highest IQ of any of the GOP candidates running.

This isn't saying much.

You have a hillbilly who thinks jesus appointed him.

One that's either a racist or a moron, according to his own book.

And one who thought the President of Germany was Putin.

[2861U2]

Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar



You have a hillbilly who thinks jesus appointed him.

Wow. Talk about stupid statements.

Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar

One that's either a racist or a moron, according to his own book.

Hey, there's another one. Apparently you don't really mind making completely false statements as long as they might get a laugh, right?

Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar
And one who thought the President of Germany was Putin.

You've never misspoken? Obama or Hillary have never misspoken? Wow, we can all take lessons from them.

[U2democrat]

I got goosebumps reading this. Ethel Kennedy endorsed Obama.

Over these past few years, I've watched Senator Obama inspire Americans from all walks of life to believe in real change and a new sense of hope and possibility. He's a magnetic force, drawing the nation together for the common good and galvanizing us all to help shape our country's future.
Barack is so like Bobby, who struggled for the rights of the poor in the Mississippi Delta and Appalachia, traveled to California to stand in solidarity with Cesar Chavez and farm workers, and fought to end another war that cost so many lives.

Today, we crave a leader with vision who can help us regain our lost humanity and rekindle our inherent generosity. With courage, caring, and charisma, Senator Obama is leading us toward a kinder, gentler world.

Senator Obama's candidacy sends out 'ripples of hope' that can build a 'current which can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance.' I am proud to support Barack Obama, and look forward to him leading this country toward a brighter, more hopeful future.

[anitram]

Originally posted by Strongbow


Well, I think you said not to long ago that the nail had been put in his aspirations to win the nomination.

Not bad for a guy that was declared DONE, by nearly everyone in this forum just a couple of months ago.

Based on those polls YOU YOURSELF said that the public opinion had shifted enough that McCain was out of it.

Six months ago, I also thought Hillary would run away with the nomination. But things change, and we change with them. Unlike your dear leader.

[ntalwar]

Originally posted by diamond


Gitmo needs to stay open

Detainees should have the right to challenge their detentions and a right to a fair trial. Otherwise, Gitmo is a charade that gets used for political purposes.

[BVS]

Originally posted by 2861U2


Wow. Talk about stupid statements.

What? He said that, not me.

Originally posted by 2861U2

Hey, there's another one. Apparently you don't really mind making completely false statements as long as they might get a laugh, right?

What? Either Ron Paul wrote those racist statement, or he let someone else write them and he published a book under his name without proofreading it. So that makes him a) racist or b)moron.

Originally posted by 2861U2

You've never misspoken? Obama or Hillary have never misspoken? Wow, we can all take lessons from them.

I've never mispoken that big. I'm sure there are other examples, that was just the first that came to mind.

[Irvine511]

Originally posted by Strongbow

Again, if the UN thought the war was really illegal, why was their not a single attempt to condemn it on the day it started or to call for an end to hostilities? You either ignore or are unwilling to answer these simple factual questions.

i can't say it any more than i already have. with STING, we see the difference between details and facts, and the difference between details and nuance.

the US has to abide by international law when it chooses to. that is what was made clear by the Iraq invasion. there is no authority that could force the US government to abide by international law, in the way that there are plenty of authorties who could force Saddam Hussein of 1990 to abide by international law.

what else was the UN to do? they passed 1483 in order to try to work with an invasion that had already happened, as well as try to hold the US accountable for the welfare of the Iraqi people. it does NOT expressly legalize the occupation. it deals with the reality as it is. the invasion of Iraq was a fait accompli, and the resolution was designed to both compel the US/UK to restore soverignty to the Iraqi people as soon as possible as well as give the UN itself a role in the post-war process.

you are unwilling to grasp any sense of nuance or complexity because your arguments hold no water. not all things are exactly the same.

i'm not much interested in the Clinton's view of the war. why would that matter to me, and why would you poitnt to that as some sort of supporting evidence? it isn't. it could well be that the Clintons are wrong about something.

i will spell out 1441 for you for the last time.

1441 threatens "consequences" if Iraq did not comply with its demands. but it is up to the Security Council -- and not the United States -- to determine precisely what those consequences were. 678 does not provide precedent that war is the *only* consequence for a violation of 1441. what all these resolutions do is leave "intent" in the eyes of the beholder, giving everyone enough wiggle room to craft whatever argument they want to justify whatever position they wish. and there is no question it is NOT a *clear* mandate for invasion.

it is also a blatant lie that "serious consequences" is a stronger expression of war than "all necessary means." in fact, “serious consequences” is a formulation that falls far short of allowing “all necessary means" which, if you'll do some research, is the traditional UN euphemism for armed force. if that particular phrases were used, then France and Russia would have vetoed 1441. thus, they went for vaguer language, and then claimed -- as you falsely do now -- that the phrases mean the same thing.

it is only the Security Council that can make such a decision as to what the consequences will be. it is expressly clear that the majority of its members however, have made clear that the resolution does not justify the waging of war. thus, that is why they did pass Resolution 1441. because it did NOT justify the invasion. the bottom line is that nine members of the Security Council, including the five permanent members, need actively to support the use of force.

and, ultimately, legal or not, the war was a bad idea from the start

[Irvine511]

Originally posted by anitram

Six months ago, I also thought Hillary would run away with the nomination. But things change, and we change with them. Unlike your dear leader.

keep in mind, you're talking to someone who sees no differences between Afghanistan and Iraq.

[Infinity]

Originally posted by Strongbow


McCain bashes the two of them on how they handle the occupation, but not on the strategic decision to remove Saddam from power. While Cheney and Rumsfeld both made mistakes, they had far better Judgement than Obama on the issue, who would prefer to have Saddam in power threatening the Persian Gulf and the world in 2008.

Threatening the world with no army, no navy, no nuclear weapons. Iraq was/is a country Iran alone can invade at any moment of the day if it wants.



Neo-cons tend to make this image of Saddam that just because he was a dictator, he had the power of a Soviet Union type of military to invade the world. And by the way, did we even need to invade the Soviet Union?