"There is no difference Between John Mccain and Barack Obama"

[wTFaMonkey]

iran IS a hostile nation. but you have to ask the question why they are hostile. we have been in their region for decades. we put the Shah of Iran in power. they have the right to be angry. they probably wouldnt be angry if we had just left them alone. they have nukes? so what, the Russians had thousands. i dont see nuclear fallout.

[InspiredLebowski]

I'd love to read an alternate history story on what would have happened had nukes never been invented.

[sunsfan1357]

How are they very big differences? They are slight differences that really dont matter.

How is Iran a hostile nation? Who have they attacked that makes them hostile?

The only difference in the world between now and then is nukes and more advanced technology.

Yes believing in and not believing in a war are very slight differences. Wanting to stay and wanting to withdrawal is a very minute detail.

...and if you don't think that Iran is a hostile nation then you have to read news from the past 30 years.

[MaxFly]

How are they very big differences? They are slight differences that really dont matter.

One of those "slight differences that doesn't matter" had one of the candidates support a war in Iraq that destabalized a region, caused our country to spend billions of dollars that we don't have, further going into debt with China, and caused us to lose 4000+ of our soldiers, only to find out that the reason we went (WMDs) was false.

Because I know that as successful as I believe we will be, and I believe that the success will be fairly easy, we will still lose some American young men or women.” [CNN, 9/24/02]

At another point, he said:

I think the victory will be rapid, within about three weeks

Before we went into Iraq, the other candidate called it a dumb war: a rash war. He called it a "war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics." He went on to say:

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.

Now, let me make this clear... we are talking about one candidate supporting a war he thought would be easy and another candidate calling that very same war "dumb" and "rash," predicting that it could destabalize the region. What about those two views do you find to be "slight differences that don't really matter." One of those views served to get us into a war. The other would have served to keep us out of said war.

How is Iran a hostile nation? Who have they attacked that makes them hostile?

Iran has called for the fall of the US as well as the fall of one of our allies, Israel. They've contributed to the tribal, destabalizing fighting between the sunnis and S.hiites in Iraq, which cost american lives in Iraq. They have defied the UN Security Council's demand to halt their nuclear program. They don't need to have attacked someone to be hostile... you do remember the Cold War?

The only difference in the world between now and then is nukes and more advanced technology.

Nukes are a pretty big difference. When you can annialate a large number of people with one weapon, and make that area uninhabitable for generations, that's a problem. Also remember that we are dealing with a global economy now... trade is different, alliances are different. Foriegn policy has a far bigger role in American interests and security around the world.

[Brunch@Five]

Didn't read every post, but the fact alone that he likened the Russia - Georgia conflict with the war in Kosovo disqualifies him from foreign policy matters.
Georgia didn't start a genocide like the Serbians in Kosovo.
Also Russia handed out passports in the months before the war to have an excuse for invading Georgia.

[Rasheed1]

Ron Paul

[ForceOfNature]

Dr. Paul is a smart man, so him saying this almost makes me a little weary of our future administration. Why couldn't he have won the Republican ticket? Damn.

[Rasheed1]

Dr. Paul is a smart man, so him saying this almost makes me a little weary of our future administration. Why couldn't he have won the Republican ticket? Damn.

they froze him out ..... mock him laughed at him and didnt cover him...

[XxNeXuSxX]

Yes, I am thinking about his speech. The one where he firmly came out against the war. I believe he called it a "dumb war."

And yet he never took measures against it when actually in office. In fact, he was quoted in 2004 as "being on the same page" as Bush with the war in Iraq.

And this is why I call Paul's views on foreign policy simplistic. Unfortunately, we have oil interests in the middle east as well as national security interests.

No. What's simplistic to assume that keeping troops overseas is somehow going to make us "safer" or going to "preserve national security". Do you know what can actually be done with troops we have overseas and put them on you know, let's say, the borders? We would actually be able to prevent terrorists from sneaking in over those borders, instead of being in to waltz in from Mexico or Canada like they do today. This "simplistic" view could have prevented 9/11. Keeping troops in Germany, for instance, is doing what to deter terrorism. I can only tell you it's adding to debt.

It would be foolish of us not to leave bases in such a volatile region, even with the majority of our fighting forces pulled out. Imagine what would happen if we pulled out of Iraq, uprooted out based and left that country to the Iraqis.

The country would see a reduction of attacks against US troops, we'd stop wasting billions of dollars there, and see a reduction of terrorism overall as we aren't there creating more insurgents. There would be minimal repercussions there but would be beneficial to the States in the long run.

The Bush administration created a mess that we will be in for the long haul. We can, however, pull out the majority of our troops as quickly as reasonably possible so that our forces aren't overextended.

Too late. If we were invaded today by lets say... Great Britain (we wouldn't, just an example), we wouldn't have any troops to protect ourselves. You must see the reality of the situation, we are sitting ducks by placing troops overseas, and at the same time stirring up insurgencies.

We're not dealing with idealism here... We're dealing with practicality... The ideal thing would be to pull everyone out and have nothing to do with the country from that point on. Unfortunately, it's highly impractical.

It's highly impractical how? We've done it in Vietnam, looks like they're okay. In fact, they were a hell of a lot better than Iraq is following the war. It's only impractical if you are falsely lured into a immature foreign policy. If what's making us stay there are simply oil interests, we must look at ourselves as simply a terrorist nation (a country that invades for monetary purposes).

When dealing with a hostile nation, it's never a good idea to say you've taken anything off the table unless you're absolutely sure that measure will never be called for.

And it shows his true colors for foreign policy, he could have stated what any responsible politician has said, he would follow the Constitution. If Iran does something that puts national security in immediate danger, he'll put a declaration to Congress, something that hasn't been done since WWII (therefore have had 3 illegal wars since then).

Why? Because you end up making yourself into a liar and a fool. Geroge H. W. Bush knows something about that when dealing with something as minor as taxes.

Wouldn't be simpler to be honest about how Obama offers an empty rhetoric? He offers nothing different than what's been going on with the Bushes or Clintons. He's not willing to follow the law, more of the same. If he's more concerned about not looking like a fool than starting a ridiculous war, there may be a problem.

You've basically taken very big differences between how Obama and McCain approach American Forign Policy and have said, 'well that difference doesn't matter...

Okay, so the biggest difference between the two is following situation.

Mccain on a situation with Iran: "A report comes out stating Iran is planning to make nuclear technology, Iran is silent on the issue" Mccain starts a war

Obama on a situation with Iran: "A report comes out stating Iran is planning on undergoing nuclear technology. Obama calls up Iran, Iran tells the US can go f*ck itself and should mind its own business" Obama starts a war.

Wow, look there, the US is put at the exact parallel situation. Now let's place a responsible politician into the hypothetical

Ron Paul on situation with Iran: "A report comes to surface that Iran is planning to build on Nuclear power". Ron Paul comes to surface and says that there is nothing to worry about, because his administration didn't sell them weapons. The report later comes out they were never planning on building nuclear weapons as they were far too poor, and have only attempted to build a single nuclear power plant.

WHOOPS! How many civilians would have died in the first two situations because of US aggression? would it exceed the 900,000 in Iraq?

and that one doesn't matter... and that one doesn't matter... and neither does that one... so see, they're the same." If Ron Paul wants to take the US back to pre-WWII foreign policy, it's time he take a stroll into the 2000s with the rest of us and consider the new complexities the world has to offer.

Ideas and liberties don't have an expiration date, it would be foolish to say so. Technology has changed, people have not. It's time you take a look at what the Constitution has to offer and realize that our national interests were made with this document.

[Rasheed1]

And yet he never took measures against it when actually in office. In fact, he was quoted in 2004 as "being on the same page" as Bush with the war in Iraq.

No. What's simplistic to assume that keeping troops overseas is somehow going to make us "safer" or going to "preserve national security". Do you know what can actually be done with troops we have overseas and put them on you know, let's say, the borders? We would actually be able to prevent terrorists from sneaking in over those borders, instead of being in to waltz in from Mexico or Canada like they do today. This "simplistic" view could have prevented 9/11. Keeping troops in Germany, for instance, is doing what to deter terrorism. I can only tell you it's adding to debt.


The country would see a reduction of attacks against US troops, we'd stop wasting billions of dollars there, and see a reduction of terrorism overall as we aren't there creating more insurgents. There would be minimal repercussions there but would be beneficial to the States in the long run.

Too late. If we were invaded today by lets say... Great Britain (we wouldn't, just an example), we wouldn't have any troops to protect ourselves. You must see the reality of the situation, we are sitting ducks by placing troops overseas, and at the same time stirring up insurgencies.


It's highly impractical how? We've done it in Vietnam, looks like they're okay. In fact, they were a hell of a lot better than Iraq is following the war. It's only impractical if you are falsely lured into a immature foreign policy. If what's making us stay there are simply oil interests, we must look at ourselves as simply a terrorist nation (a country that invades for monetary purposes).


And it shows his true colors for foreign policy, he could have stated what any responsible politician has said, he would follow the Constitution. If Iran does something that puts national security in immediate danger, he'll put a declaration to Congress, something that hasn't been done since WWII (therefore have had 3 illegal wars since then).


Wouldn't be simpler to be honest about how Obama offers an empty rhetoric? He offers nothing different than what's been going on with the Bushes or Clintons. He's not willing to follow the law, more of the same. If he's more concerned about not looking like a fool than starting a ridiculous war, there may be a problem.




Okay, so the biggest difference between the two is following situation.

Mccain on a situation with Iran: "A report comes out stating Iran is planning to make nuclear technology, Iran is silent on the issue" Mccain starts a war

Obama on a situation with Iran: "A report comes out stating Iran is planning on undergoing nuclear technology. Obama calls up Iran, Iran tells the US can go f*ck itself and should mind its own business" Obama starts a war.

Wow, look there, the US is put at the exact parallel situation. Now let's place a responsible politician into the hypothetical

Ron Paul on situation with Iran: "A report comes to surface that Iran is planning to build on Nuclear power". Ron Paul comes to surface and says that there is nothing to worry about, because his administration didn't sell them weapons. The report later comes out they were never planning on building nuclear weapons as they were far too poor, and have only attempted to build a single nuclear power plant.

WHOOPS! How many civilians would have died in the first two situations because of US aggression? would it exceed the 900,000 in Iraq?



Ideas and liberties don't have an expiration date, it would be foolish to say so. Technology has changed, people have not. It's time you take a look at what the Constitution has to offer and realize that our national interests were made with this document.

thank you... I can just sit back & read because you got it covered

[LJJ]

[QUOTE]"How would you handle these global threats, then, if it

[MaxFly]

And yet he never took measures against it when actually in office. In fact, he was quoted in 2004 as "being on the same page" as Bush with the war in Iraq.

You're backpedalling... Again, you've characterized someone who was against the war from the beginning, calling it a "dumb," "rash" war as only having slight difference with someone who was for the war and thought that it would be easy. The contrast is clear and pronounced. You can not argue that someone who advocated a war that would eventually cost the lives of 4000 US men and women had only slightly different views on that issue from someone who was against the war from the beginning... a measure that would have spared the majority of those 4000 lives. Forget the billions we've spent, forget the new instability in the region... even if lives is the only barometer of the difference, 4000 lives is a big difference. It is asinine to argue otherwise.

To your point of Obama not doing anything to get out of Iraq... war is a slippery slope. Once you start, once you commit the lives of men and women to a mission, one you cause instability in a region, you can't just pull out, you can't just stop funding troops. That's reckless. You have an obligation to finish the mission and pull out as quickly as possible, which is Obama's stance. Obama voted not to fund the troops once, but the problem with this strategy is that while you're voting not to fund the troops, you're playing politics with the lives of people's sons and daughters, mothers and fathers, and you're playing politics with the welfare of a region. As idealistic as Obama is, even he understands the practical implications of pulling out of Iraq too quickly. He has made it a point to say that we need to be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were reckless getting in.

No. What's simplistic to assume that keeping troops overseas is somehow going to make us "safer" or going to "preserve national security". Do you know what can actually be done with troops we have overseas and put them on you know, let's say, the borders? We would actually be able to prevent terrorists from sneaking in over those borders, instead of being in to waltz in from Mexico or Canada like they do today. This "simplistic" view could have prevented 9/11. Keeping troops in Germany, for instance, is doing what to deter terrorism. I can only tell you it's adding to debt.

We keep troops in various regions so that we can quickly respond to threats when they arise, so that our troops can be well trained and comfortable in those regions or hot spots, and so that we are a deterrent of undue aggression by random nations. It would be foolish... no... downright stupid to deploy troops from the US everytime something popped off somewhere in the world that we had to get involved in, and our troops would be ignorant of the regions they were deployed to if they were stationed solely in the US. Unfortunately, it's the world we live in, but it's necessary... Guess what, we have allies around the world. We station our troops around the world so that we can be of quick aid to them. We learned out lesson from WWII. We can't just send out troops who are ignorant of the regions where we want them to fight. We also have interests around the world that may require military intervention at any time.

The country would see a reduction of attacks against US troops, we'd stop wasting billions of dollars there, and see a reduction of terrorism overall as we aren't there creating more insurgents. There would be minimal repercussions there but would be beneficial to the States in the long run.

That's a pipe dream and I can see why you would support Ron Paul. That is a region with oil interests (which we are unfortunately still addicted to) as well as allies... Israel, and the newly formed govenment of Iraq. We can't break it and then leave it, expecting everything to be fine. It's what we've done in other countries in the past (Afghanistan and Iraq) and it's come back to bite us... hard.

Too late. If we were invaded today by lets say... Great Britain (we wouldn't, just an example), we wouldn't have any troops to protect ourselves. You must see the reality of the situation, we are sitting ducks by placing troops overseas, and at the same time stirring up insurgencies.

The problem here is that almost everyone agrees that the US military is overextended, including both Obama (who mentioned this as a problem before we went into Iraq) and McCain (who seems to just be figuring this out). If we pull our troops out and rebuild our miltary, we'll be fine, even with a few troops and bases around the world. The problem is that we're trying to fight two wars at the same time... with one of the wars being unnecessary.

It's highly impractical how? We've done it in Vietnam, looks like they're okay. In fact, they were a hell of a lot better than Iraq is following the war. It's only impractical if you are falsely lured into a immature foreign policy. If what's making us stay there are simply oil interests, we must look at ourselves as simply a terrorist nation (a country that invades for monetary purposes).

We shouldn't have gone into Vietnam to begin with... but Vietnam was a poor nation when we invaded, and it was an even poorer nation when we left. It was 40+ years ago and we had no other interests but to "uproot communism," a foolhardy endeavor in and of itself. We shouldn't have gone into Iraq, but there are real implications in leaving the place a mess and pulling out recklessly... an already weak government won't last long in that region, they're fighting amongts themselves already, and it's our fault.

And it shows his true colors for foreign policy, he could have stated what any responsible politician has said, he would follow the Constitution. If Iran does something that puts national security in immediate danger, he'll put a declaration to Congress, something that hasn't been done since WWII (therefore have had 3 illegal wars since then).

Which translates into not taking war off of the table. lol

Wouldn't be simpler to be honest about how Obama offers an empty rhetoric? He offers nothing different than what's been going on with the Bushes or Clintons. He's not willing to follow the law, more of the same. If he's more concerned about not looking like a fool than starting a ridiculous war, there may be a problem.

Lol, now who's offering empty rhetoric here? You've already gone on record as trying to argue that the person who didn't want to go into Iraq and the person who did have only slight differences in their views on that issue and on their foreign policy approach in general. I mean, really?

Okay, so the biggest difference between the two is following situation.

Mccain on a situation with Iran: "A report comes out stating Iran is planning to make nuclear technology, Iran is silent on the issue" Mccain starts a war

Obama on a situation with Iran: "A report comes out stating Iran is planning on undergoing nuclear technology. Obama calls up Iran, Iran tells the US can go f*ck itself and should mind its own business" Obama starts a war.

Wow, look there, the US is put at the exact parallel situation. Now let's place a responsible politician into the hypothetical

Ron Paul on situation with Iran: "A report comes to surface that Iran is planning to build on Nuclear power". Ron Paul comes to surface and says that there is nothing to worry about, because his administration didn't sell them weapons. The report later comes out they were never planning on building nuclear weapons as they were far too poor, and have only attempted to build a single nuclear power plant.

WHOOPS! How many civilians would have died in the first two situations because of US aggression? would it exceed the 900,000 in Iraq?

Smart, but you missed a few steps with Obama and even McCain. Obama's being that if Iran wants to create nuclear power, we'll help them as long as they refrain from creating nuclear weapons. The US used to use military action as a last option when dealing with foreign threats. The Bush administration has diverted from that path. Obama would simply be returning us to that tradition. What would Ron Paul do? Ignore Iran and hope that they really are building a nuclear power plant without verification? Hope they don't nuke anyone, or sell weapons to terrorist cells? People have charged Obama with spreading false hope, but basically our foreign policy would be to hope Iran was being forthcoming and weren't trying anything crazy.

Ideas and liberties don't have an expiration date, it would be foolish to say so. Technology has changed, people have not. It's time you take a look at what the Constitution has to offer and realize that our national interests were made with this document.

Technology has changed the world. The people may be the same, but their capabilities are different. Tanks in the hands of a hostile nation isn't necessarily a big issue, but a nuclear weapon or anthrax in the same hands is a problem.

You reference the constitution... note that it is a living document that has had additions and changes. National interests were made with this document, but many of our national interest have changed since. The founders realized that this would happen, and that's why they left room for additions. It's why slavery was abolished and women gained the right to vote. It's why the terms of the president were able to be set and we could define who has the right to vote.

[Rasheed1]

Maxfly


your logic about the United States having troops all over the world so we can "respond to threats" is nonsense....

would you approve of say, russian troops being stationed here in order to "respond to threats" as quickly as possible? how about German troops, Korean troops?

the thing that makes the "we need trops all over the world" argument a nonsensical one is that the people who run their governments across the world are all grown ups... adults just like you and me and some of the others here...Im sure they can handle their own business.. And if we are simply there to protect our own interest, then i suggest that could be better accomplished from here (USA)... Our presence in other countries causes problems and wastes our money and resources


America wasnt founded on policing the world... Its our main problem.. Americans have been brainwashed into believing that it is our DUTY to police other countries..

how can we be land of the free home of the brave and at the same time be the world's police?

doesnt make any sense

[Kebab Stall]

Maxfly


your logic about the United States having troops all over the world so we can "respond to threats" is nonsense....

would you approve of say, russian troops being stationed here in order to "respond to threats" as quickly as possible? how about German troops, Korean troops?

the thing that makes the "we need trops all over the world" argument a nonsensical one is that the people who run their governments across the world are all grown ups... adults just like you and me and some of the others here...Im sure they can handle their own business.. And if we are simply there to protect our own interest, then i suggest that could be better accomplished from here (USA)... Our presence in other countries causes problems and wastes our money and resources


America wasnt founded on policing the world... Its our main problem.. Americans have been brainwashed into believing that it is our DUTY to police other countries..

how can we be land of the free home of the brave and at the same time be the world's police?

doesnt make any sense

That's exactly how I see America right now. Basically trying to police world and make everyone else's business, their business. It is not helping anybody, but fuel the ego of the American government.

[MaxFly]

Maxfly
your logic about the United States having troops all over the world so we can "respond to threats" is nonsense....

Rasheed1, it's how the world operates. Ideally, we could keep all our soldiers in the US and not have bases around the world... then again, ideally, we wouldn't need an army. The fact remains that we have become a major military influence in the world. We have interests and allies in the world that require our military presence abroad. The goal is to strike a happy medium. We can't seek to police the world (Iraq) but we have learned that we can't remain an isolationalist nation (WWII).

would you approve of say, russian troops being stationed here in order to "respond to threats" as quickly as possible? how about German troops, Korean troops?

Britain has troops all over the world. Do you have a problem with that?

the thing that makes the "we need trops all over the world" argument a nonsensical one is that the people who run their governments across the world are all grown ups... adults just like you and me and some of the others here...Im sure they can handle their own business..

Yeah, in the early 1940s, the French, British and Polish were grownups. They surely did a great job in handing their business. Hitler who? In the 90s, Bosnia and Kosovo weren't real issues. Milosevic wasn't much a of threat. The people in those countries were grownups... they were able to handle their own business. Yeah....

And if we are simply there to protect our own interest, then i suggest that could be better accomplished from here (USA)... Our presence in other countries causes problems and wastes our money and resources

Explain how we protect the oil resources and behave as a deterrent in the middle east from US bases? Explain how we support our allies in the middle east from US bases. Why not just sever all alliances to begin with. Those other countries are just holding us down. What problem is our presence in Germany causing? What about out presence in Japan; causing a lot of problems there? We have bases in the South Pacific... See a lot of problems in the South Pacific lately? You really think the turbulence in the middle east is simply a result of our presence? We've certainly created a mess in Iraq... that's our fault, but it's irrational to leave the region unstable.

America wasnt founded on policing the world... Its our main problem.. Americans have been brainwashed into believing that it is our DUTY to police other countries..

how can we be land of the free home of the brave and at the same time be the world's police?

doesnt make any sense

I agree. We shouldn't police the world, but we can't become so isolationalistic that we become negligent. We're trying to find a medium; Iraq is one extreme, WWII is the other. Unfortunately, with great power comes great responsibility and we can't remove our presence, if only for the sake of our interest and those of our allies around the world.