Who do you trust more in the case....

[UKMustangFan]

I can't choose either, based upon the question. I can't vote for someone on the hypothetical "if" we were attacked again. For that portion of consideration I must give to the "what if's" of a future terrorist attack, I prefer to concentrate on who would I trust more to ensure that there is no future attack.

 

If you don't mind me asking, what would your answer be to that question RM?

[True blue (and gold)]

I don't doubt that McCain would be willing to use the military in response to a terrorist attack. However, the fact that he continues to this day to proclaim that the Iraq invasion was an appropriate action in the wake of 9/11 makes me nervous about his judgement in such a scenario.

 

That is an interesting point that I had not considered.

[rockmom]

If you don't mind me asking, what would your answer be to that question RM?

 

 

I don't know yet, to be honest.

 

I think that in today's day and age, we need to be open to new ideas. Obama has said he would meet with Iran, for instance. That idea intrigues me. I think a lot could be accomplished in the way of mutual understanding. I don't think we should negotiate, but I do think we should afford our "enemies" the opportunity to speak with us face to face. I'm not sure what McCain's reaction to such a consideration would be. I'm thinking he'd hold the line and refuse to meet with them. That, I think is a mistake. But, I can't decide, on that issue, which would be the better option. There's more to consider than Iran in this particular issue.

[02Ram54]

So you'd rather bring in the people behind the attacks to have a little pow wow and try to reason with them?

If they hate us because of our freedoms (which isn't the real issue, but whatever) why do you want to give into their demands?

[ladiesbballcoach]

I don't know yet, to be honest.

 

I think that in today's day and age, we need to be open to new ideas. Obama has said he would meet with Iran, for instance. That idea intrigues me. I think a lot could be accomplished in the way of mutual understanding. I don't think we should negotiate, but I do think we should afford our "enemies" the opportunity to speak with us face to face. I'm not sure what McCain's reaction to such a consideration would be. I'm thinking he'd hold the line and refuse to meet with them. That, I think is a mistake. But, I can't decide, on that issue, which would be the better option. There's more to consider than Iran in this particular issue.

 

Can't we just text them?

 

Hey Rha, want 2 b my BFF, Bush

 

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

[UKMustangFan]

If they hate us because of our freedoms (which isn't the real issue, but whatever) why do you want to give into their demands?

 

How would a retaliation attack be giving into their demands?

[02Ram54]

I was talking about civil liberties in my original post.

[HHSDad]

My vote went to McCain.

 

However, I was torn between Obama talking about change at the terrorist site and McCain apologizing to the terrorists for having offended them.

[the mathemagician]

I don't doubt that McCain would be willing to use the military in response to a terrorist attack. However, the fact that he continues to this day to proclaim that the Iraq invasion was an appropriate action in the wake of 9/11 makes me nervous about his judgement in such a scenario.

 

Tis true...plus he's going on 92.

[Sting]

I just got an e-mail that said Obama was a secret Muslim terrorist. Therefore, I can only assume that Mccain would be better against terrorism...

[Hearsay]

Grace under fire.

 

Pulled his comrades from the burning deck of a ship.

Tried to save his aircraft from certain destruction.

Survived a Vietnamese POW camp.

When offered freedom, demanded his comrades prior release.

Endured endless torture to his own breaking point.

Trained through a broken body to a return to duty.

 

Grace under fire. I'm sorry, and with respect, being raised by a single mother in alleged poverty just isn't the same.

[Hatz]

I'm curious. When we say "Who do you trust more in the case of a terrorist attack?", what are we TRUSTING them to do?

 

Are we trusting them to retaliate?

 

Are we trusting them to lock down any suspects?

 

Are we trusting them clean up the mess?

 

Are we trusting them to stop future assaults?

 

Are we trusting them to articulate our hurt and bring healing?

 

 

I don't know we can answer this unless we have an idea of what we are trusting them to do.

 

For example: We trusted Bush and he delivered after 9/11. He spoke from a wounded heart. He led us to seek justice and retribution in Afghanistan. He hunted for Bin Laden. I think others might have done exactly the same but we know he did.

 

Now the real dividing point is Iraq. When Bin Laden was not found, captured or killed - it appears the broader war was launched (see Iraq) and this is where much of the trust was eventually eroded.

 

Now, in reference to McCain and Obama; the question is "Who do you trust in the same situation?"

 

I lean towards McCain, but I don't see anything in Obama that makes me believe I can't trust him in this scenario. I think one thing is possible, he might not broaden the goals of the conflict before the initial goals are accomplished.

[AcesFull]

Grace under fire.

 

Pulled his comrades from the burning deck of a ship.

Tried to save his aircraft from certain destruction.

Survived a Vietnamese POW camp.

When offered freedom, demanded his comrades prior release.

Endured endless torture to his own breaking point.

Trained through a broken body to a return to duty.

 

Grace under fire. I'm sorry, and with respect, being raised by a single mother in alleged poverty just isn't the same.

:thumb: When you put it that way....

[oldrambler]

There have been a few questions on this one about who do you trust "in case of a attack", or "to prevent another attack" and so on. I guess my answer would be a combination of all really, in any case would trust McCain over "Obama the Great":D in that wants to "talk with people that want to kill us":rolleyes:.

 

Another couple of questions and comments were about civil liberties. I personaly believe that one of the big problems with this country is groups like the ACLU, this group is now imo turned into just a cover for their own bias agendas. I personally don't give a flip about the terrorist civil liberties.....Oh, thats right they are not Americans and we should be sympathetic to them and over look the minor fact tat they want nothing more than to destroy our way of lfe. As far as the ACLU, that imo started out at te conception of it as a great organazation...... enter people like Sharpton, Jackson, Clinton's and any number of today's university "liberal arts" professors and the others that think they are experts on how we all should live that have forgotten that they are hired to teach and not brainwash, same with Hollywierd actors, they are hired to act or entertain and not make any foriegn policy or executive decisions.

 

Again, I am not aginst the idea of the ACLU as it was originally deveoloped and intended. I am against what it has turned into and that is an organizatrion that is guilty of the very things they claim to be against and are doing much more harm than good.

JMO

[oldrambler]

Grace under fire.

 

Pulled his comrades from the burning deck of a ship.

Tried to save his aircraft from certain destruction.

Survived a Vietnamese POW camp.

When offered freedom, demanded his comrades prior release.

Endured endless torture to his own breaking point.

Trained through a broken body to a return to duty.

 

Grace under fire. I'm sorry, and with respect, being raised by a single mother in alleged poverty just isn't the same.

 

:thumb: