I don't like Obama because I fall in the middle class and regardless of what he says he is going to tax me to death. Lets shine him in the best light and say that he only does raise taxes on the upper class. Do you really think they are going to take major hits to their profits? NO. If they are unable to find loopholes in Obama's tax hikes then they will simply pass the cost on to me, the consumer, by raising prices on their products.

 

If you are wanting businesses taken care of then McCain is definitely your man. The biggest majority of his staff & even his campaign manager are or were lobbyist.

 

over 964,000 people have donated to Barack Obama. None of which came from lobbyist (at least directly) and no "swift boat" to my knowledge.

Which reason for invading do you support?

 

I don't like the thought that we dictate what every other country does. Instead of waiting to get support from other countries, we invaded on our own. We invade a country that has not done anything to us directly.

 

Neither did the Serbs, so were you upset when we sent "peace keepers" to Kosovo and began to bomb the Serbs?

Which reason for invading do you support?

 

I don't like the thought that we dictate what every other country does. Instead of waiting to get support from other countries, we invaded on our own. We invade a country that has not done anything to us directly.

 

One simple question, how long do you allow a dictator to ignore and thumb his nose at requests from the UN before he is held accountable for not meeting the requests of the world?

 

I believe he had done that for 10 years. None of the other leaders have refused to play nice for that long of a period.

If you are wanting businesses taken care of then McCain is definitely your man. The biggest majority of his staff & even his campaign manager are or were lobbyist.

 

over 964,000 people have donated to Barack Obama. None of which came from lobbyist (at least directly) and no "swift boat" to my knowledge.

 

I really do wish he was for protecting unborn babies.

Don't worry, everything will be just fine once President Obama sits down and makes nice with Iran's president and the mullahs who pull his strings. When the evil Mr. Bush exits the world stage, all of the Islamo-Fascists who are now our enemies will lay down their arms and return to their jobs in the private sector. Who knew that wire tapping a few terrorist phone calls would have made them so angry and disagreeable?

 

Muslim thugs in the Middle East and northern Africa have been a thorn in this nation's side for more than 200 years. Sitting down face to face with terrorists does not humanize them in any way. If Obama is as naive as he seems, if elected he will be an unpopular one-term president because he will be played in the same way that Jimmy Carter was played by the despots of this world.

 

There are two primary ways to live in a world full of terrorists. We can bribe them or we can intimidate them by taking bold action. They will not simply go away if we ignore them or treat them like the human beings that they are not. I am proud that President Bush chose to take the fight to the terrorists.

 

Boy Howdy Nick I couldn't have said it better myself!:thumb:

I think the point is that it might not be the best path but it is a better path than where Gore and Kerry would have taken us.

 

And where Obama based on his comments would take us in the fight against Al-Qaida.

 

How do you know where they would take us?? More republican propaganda & scare tactics. Democrats can't defend our nation. How was our security during Bill Clinton??

 

I just don't think the "bully technique" is the only strategy to have in foreign relations. It is a necessary evil sometimes but I would try other means to bring peace instead of going directly to war.

Which reason for invading do you support?

 

I don't like the thought that we dictate what every other country does. Instead of waiting to get support from other countries, we invaded on our own. We invade a country that has not done anything to us directly.

 

 

Short and sweet answer: I do believe we have a right to take preemptive action against a country that we think threatens our national interests and Iraq falls into that category. As for not thinking we should dictate what other countries do: we've done it for a long time, other countries do and have done it for a long time, the UN does and has done it for a long time. Look at UN sanctions and they are nothing other than actions intended to dictate what the affected country should do. Tariffs imposed by us against countries that dump products are intended to dictate what other countries do. It goes on and on. We can debate the wmd intel issue until we are dead (about the only common ground we could probably agree on is that our human intel capabilities in general and in Iraq specifically was terrible pre-Iraq invasion, but even then we probably start disagreeing whole fault it was). We gave Iraq amble opportunity to open his kimono to prove that he didn't have wmds; he repeatedly thrwarted those efforts; ignored deadline after deadline imposed on him by the UN; so we took action. I'm glad that he didn't have WMDs or our military casualty count would be increased multi-fold. There can be no doubt that he intended to again produce WMDs as soon as he could. You can assume he'd not use them against us or provide them to people who would use them against us. I'm not willing to bet U.S. lives that such assumption is correct.

 

If you want a longer version of my reasoning, search my posts if you care to and I'm sure you'll find a couple.:jump:

If you are wanting businesses taken care of then McCain is definitely your man. The biggest majority of his staff & even his campaign manager are or were lobbyist.

 

over 964,000 people have donated to Barack Obama. None of which came from lobbyist (at least directly) and no "swift boat" to my knowledge.

 

Can't do a "swift boat" on someone who never served in the military to begin with.:banana:

How do you know where they would take us?? More republican propaganda & scare tactics. Democrats can't defend our nation. How was our security during Bill Clinton??

 

I just don't think the "bully technique" is the only strategy to have in foreign relations. It is a necessary evil sometimes but I would try other means to bring peace instead of going directly to war.

 

And it wasn't. We went 10 years with diplomatic options before the Iraq War.

 

Based on what Saddam said, he didn't put any concern to Clinton's bombing. Said that was what he expected US's response to be on his disregarding the UN rules placed on him. And GW surprised him with the invasion.

 

My concern is that the groups that support Democrats and put pressure on the Democrats for certain decisions stand for responses that would not allow us to take firm action against terrorists.

This is an interesting view since there are many reports that have suggested that GW Bush has trounced on the Constitution more than any President in history.

*Guantanemo Bay

*secret phone taps

*undeclared war

 

Very predictable....instead of addressing the article, you do just what Obama does- criticize the current administration and use good words to support your guy.

 

I hope your comeback doesn't say something to the effect of "that's what McCain and the other candidates do as well."

Here are my views regarding Obama:

While I teach my children to work out their problems and try to talk things through, I also, if this doesn't work, at some point you have to take a stand.

 

I don't see why this stance is so bad in foreign policy. If you have a problem with us, let's FIRST try to work it out. If we can't, then we'll have to take necessary precautions.

 

My view is that communication will more than likely lead to less violence. Will violence occur, yes, but we owe it to our troops that will put their lives on the line to at least see if we can solve the problem(s) first.

Neville Chamberlain thought that he could reason with Hitler. However, once the Nazis tanks began to roll and the blood of thousands of Europeans began flowing, Chamberlain had the sense to realize that his approach had failed. American blood has been shed and the time to negotiate with terrorists has long since passed.

 

Until Iran's behavior changes and as long as its president is calling publicly for the elimination of Israel, no American president should even consider sitting down and talking to the Iranian goverment officials.

Short and sweet answer: I do believe we have a right to take preemptive action against a country that we think threatens our national interests and Iraq falls into that category. As for not thinking we should dictate what other countries do: we've done it for a long time, other countries do and have done it for a long time, the UN does and has done it for a long time. Look at UN sanctions and they are nothing other than actions intended to dictate what the affected country should do. Tariffs imposed by us against countries that dump products are intended to dictate what other countries do. It goes on and on. We can debate the wmd intel issue until we are dead (about the only common ground we could probably agree on is that our human intel capabilities in general and in Iraq specifically was terrible pre-Iraq invasion, but even then we probably start disagreeing whole fault it was). We gave Iraq amble opportunity to open his kimono to prove that he didn't have wmds; he repeatedly thrwarted those efforts; ignored deadline after deadline imposed on him by the UN; so we took action. I'm glad that he didn't have WMDs or our military casualty count would be increased multi-fold. There can be no doubt that he intended to again produce WMDs as soon as he could. You can assume he'd not use them against us or provide them to people who would use them against us. I'm not willing to bet U.S. lives that such assumption is correct.

 

If you want a longer version of my reasoning, search my posts if you care to and I'm sure you'll find a couple.:jump:

 

I just do not see a 5 year war that has caused the life of thousands of U.S. & Iraqi citizens plus the billions of dollars as positive. Wars are bloody & sometimes necessary but I feel that it is a last ditch effort. If its was a last ditch effort, we would have had more support from other countries & the U.N. We went in solely, so every soldier will be U.S. & all funds will be paid by us.

 

The UN taking actions is much different than the U.S. acting alone.

Neville Chamberlain thought that he could reason with Hitler. However, once the Nazis tanks began to roll and the blood of thousands of Europeans began flowing, Chamberlain had the sense to realize that his approach had failed. American blood has been shed and the time to negotiate with terrorists has long since passed.

 

Until Iran's behavior changes and as long as its president is calling publicly for the elimination of Israel, no American president should even consider sitting down and talking to the Iranian goverment officials.

 

Who does it then? How do you work on things diplomatically if you don't have conversations?

 

And I don't think the point you send the someone like Rice holds water as she speaks for the President.

Neville Chamberlain thought that he could reason with Hitler. However, once the Nazis tanks began to roll and the blood of thousands of Europeans began flowing, Chamberlain had the sense to realize that his approach had failed. American blood has been shed and the time to negotiate with terrorists has long since passed.

 

Until Iran's behavior changes and as long as its president is calling publicly for the elimination of Israel, no American president should even consider sitting down and talking to the Iranian goverment officials.

 

Question, why is this issue so very high on the agenda?

 

While Israel is a strong ally, why is what Iran says to Israel a criteria for dialogue or no dialogue?

 

Personally I wonder what can Iran do to the state of Israel? Can they march through existing countries a military force and invade? I doubt that happening.

 

Can they develop nuclear weapons and launch them vs. Israel? Most definitely possible.

 

Will Israel likely retaliate or do something preemptively in that scenario? You can count on it. While not having admitted to developing nukes, many believe that Israel has nuke capability and/or weapons at the ready. Why would Iran's threat be anymore than just words?

 

If we speculate that the Arab states might form a coalition with Iran to attack, how did that work out in the past? Many of them aren't looking to do that again.

Question, why is this issue so very high on the agenda?

 

While Israel is a strong ally, why is what Iran says to Israel a criteria for dialogue or no dialogue?

 

Personally I wonder what can Iran do to the state of Israel? Can they march through existing countries a military force and invade? I doubt that happening.

 

Can they develop nuclear weapons and launch them vs. Israel? Most definitely possible.

 

Will Israel likely retaliate or do something preemptively in that scenario? You can count on it. While not having admitted to developing nukes, many believe that Israel has nuke capability and/or weapons at the ready. Why would Iran's threat be anymore than just words?

 

If we speculate that the Arab states might form a coalition with Iran to attack, how did that work out in the past? Many of them aren't looking to do that again.

 

True that. Arabs are mainly Sunni and Iran is the home of the Shia Muslims (sp?) and they won't agree on anything. An alliance between the Sunni Saudis (for example) and the Shia Iranians would upset the crazies in both countries. With the Saudi royals having to worry about terrorists wanting to overthrow them they won't agree to helping the Iranians. IMO