Oh, we do allow for the fact that POTUS has experts who give counsel. But I seem to recall a lot of Bush detractors that felt his reliance on certain military and defense advisors got us into Iraq. The thinking being that since Bush had almost zero experience, he almost had to default to the advise of his counsel. Now I expect some to say that Obama will be smarter than Bush and surround himself with better advisors. Can you be totally certain of that? What if he is mistaken and doesn't pick the best advisors? With no personal experience in those advisors, how can be push back against bad advise from his advisors or know enough to dig into the advise deeper and ask questions?

 

I can say this quite confidently: even though I voted for Bush in the past (not the 2000 primary however), I would have a hard time voting for him in 08 if he was running against a Democrat with a lot more experience in military, foreign policy and intelligence areas because of his inexperience in those areas.

 

How many people are there that have actual real-world experience in military matters (and I don't mean just being in the military), foreign policy, and intelligence?

While I agree with you LN and that is shaping a lot of my view, when was the last one of those we had?

 

George Bush I is the last I can think of. This current Bush had no significant miliatry background. Clinton, well we know that story. Reagan had no combat experience if my memory serves and was one of many actors and stars that signed up during WW II. Carter had served the Navy but it didn't seem to help him. Kennedy and Bush I are the last two frontline vets we had as president and it seems to have served them well.

 

I think leadership is the factor regardless of military experience. That's the difference maker.

 

I agree with you that it has been a while since we had a President with the experience in those matters. And in my opinion, its more important at this juncture in our history than it has been in many, many years. I'm truly concerned about the immediate future. Russia has obviously decided to re-assert itself militarily and scares the bejesus out of me (Putin to me is the most dangerous man alive). China is stronger now (relatively) than it has been in centuries. While Al Qaeda I think has been weakened, its not gone and will be back stronger than ever if we don't continue to attack it. I wouldn't put it past Russia at all to do whatever it can to use Al Qaeda to weaken and hurt us. Syria and Iran can start WWIII in a heartbeat if they are not careful in their confrontations with Israel. N. Korea is a potential powder keg, with a lunatic running the country. I know that issues like the economy, taxes, health insurance and energy are important to Americans and should be; but they are so far back in the car for me right now, I'm willing to bend on some of those issues if we can elect a President that knows what he's doing from the minute he gets elected on the military, foreign policy and intelligence issues.

 

And to me, McCain is a proven leader with a track record of showing real guts and a lot of experience in the areas of most importance to me. He's not the speaker that Obama is, and I realize that Obama's ability to energize Americans with his speaking could be very useful in a war time situation, but I'm willing to accept McCain's poorer public speaking skills in order to gain his leadership and experience and hopefully avoid the need for war time speeches.

I agree with you that it has been a while since we had a President with the experience in those matters. And in my opinion, its more important at this juncture in our history than it has been in many, many years. I'm truly concerned about the immediate future. Russia has obviously decided to re-assert itself militarily and scares the bejesus out of me (Putin to me is the most dangerous man alive). China is stronger now (relatively) than it has been in centuries. While Al Qaeda I think has been weakened, its not gone and will be back stronger than ever if we don't continue to attack it. I wouldn't put it past Russia at all to do whatever it can to use Al Qaeda to weaken and hurt us. Syria and Iran can start WWIII in a heartbeat if they are not careful in their confrontations with Israel. N. Korea is a potential powder keg, with a lunatic running the country. I know that issues like the economy, taxes, health insurance and energy are important to Americans and should be; but they are so far back in the car for me right now, I'm willing to bend on some of those issues if we can elect a President that knows what he's doing from the minute he gets elected on the military, foreign policy and intelligence issues.

 

And to me, McCain is a proven leader with a track record of showing real guts and a lot of experience in the areas of most importance to me. He's not the speaker that Obama is, and I realize that Obama's ability to energize Americans with his speaking could be very useful in a war time situation, but I'm willing to accept McCain's poorer public speaking skills in order to gain his leadership and experience and hopefully avoid the need for war time speeches.

 

I agree with your assessment of the dangers we face. That is part of the reason I support Obama. In the most important decision of his political career, Iraq, McCain got it wrong. Even worse, even after he sees how badly it turned out, he still thinks it was the right decision. That lack of judgement is at the heart of why Obama is a much better choice. Given a choice between experience and bad judgement or inexperience and good judgement, I'll go with good judgement. Experience leading us in the wrong direction is not the kind of experience I want.

I agree with your assessment of the dangers we face. That is part of the reason I support Obama. In the most important decision of his political career, Iraq, McCain got it wrong. Even worse, even after he sees how badly it turned out, he still thinks it was the right decision. That lack of judgement is at the heart of why Obama is a much better choice. Given a choice between experience and bad judgement or inexperience and good judgement, I'll go with good judgement. Experience leading us in the wrong direction is not the kind of experience I want.

So, what are you saying? Obama got it right? He wasn't even privy to the same info.

So, what are you saying? Obama got it right? He wasn't even privy to the same info.

:thumb: Cindy "Peace Mom" Sheehan, Martin Sheen, and George Clooney all reached the same conclusion on Iraq with the same information that Obama had available to him. None of them are fit to be president either.

I agree with your assessment of the dangers we face. That is part of the reason I support Obama. In the most important decision of his political career, Iraq, McCain got it wrong. Even worse, even after he sees how badly it turned out, he still thinks it was the right decision. That lack of judgement is at the heart of why Obama is a much better choice. Given a choice between experience and bad judgement or inexperience and good judgement, I'll go with good judgement. Experience leading us in the wrong direction is not the kind of experience I want.

 

You are certainly entitled to your assessment. I agree with McCain that the Iraq invasion was correct. Why do you conclude that the Iraq situation has turned out so badly? I see Hussein gone, stability coming to Iraq, the formation of a democratic govt, the elimination of one of the most brutal and ruthless governments that tortured, raped and killed many, many innocent people, and hopefully the beginning of the stabilization of the middle East. Those are all very good things in my opinion. Yes I know that Americans have lost their lives to make those accomplishments and as former military, I am saddened by that. But sometimes we have to make the ultimate sacrifices for those accomplishments. I believe that our accompliishments in Iraq will result in less American lives being lost in the future.

 

I realize that I'm not going to convince you that invading Iraq was the right thing to do, that's okay. We are all entitled to our opinions.

 

I will close by pointing out that in a March 08 poll conducted for ABB and the BBC, 54% of the Iraqi's polled said that things were going quite well or very well in their lives, up from 39% in August of 07. I'd like to think that if they did a poll today, that percentage would be even higher. I am very encouraged by the March 08 poll. If we can bring further stability, safety, economic vitality and democracy to Iraq, I believe it will spread to other middle Eastern countries. If that happens, I believe the fanatic elements in the middle Eastern countries can be marginalized, which will not only be fantastic for the innocent people and children in those countries, it will be very good for our own national interests. Just think of all the good things that could be accomplished in the world with the billions and billions of dollars we and other countries have spent over the years handling the unrest and tension in the middle East.

You are certainly entitled to your assessment. I agree with McCain that the Iraq invasion was correct. Why do you conclude that the Iraq situation has turned out so badly? I see Hussein gone, stability coming to Iraq, the formation of a democratic govt, the elimination of one of the most brutal and ruthless governments that tortured, raped and killed many, many innocent people, and hopefully the beginning of the stabilization of the middle East. Those are all very good things in my opinion. Yes I know that Americans have lost their lives to make those accomplishments and as former military, I am saddened by that. But sometimes we have to make the ultimate sacrifices for those accomplishments. I believe that our accompliishments in Iraq will result in less American lives being lost in the future.

 

I realize that I'm not going to convince you that invading Iraq was the right thing to do, that's okay. We are all entitled to our opinions.

 

I will close by pointing out that in a March 08 poll conducted for ABB and the BBC, 54% of the Iraqi's polled said that things were going quite well or very well in their lives, up from 39% in August of 07. I'd like to think that if they did a poll today, that percentage would be even higher. I am very encouraged by the March 08 poll. If we can bring further stability, safety, economic vitality and democracy to Iraq, I believe it will spread to other middle Eastern countries. If that happens, I believe the fanatic elements in the middle Eastern countries can be marginalized, which will not only be fantastic for the innocent people and children in those countries, it will be very good for our own national interests. Just think of all the good things that could be accomplished in the world with the billions and billions of dollars we and other countries have spent over the years handling the unrest and tension in the middle East.

 

 

I should have been more precise. I don't think things have turned out well for the United States. The cost in lives, treasure and national focus have worked to our long term detriment. We have strengthened the position of Iran. With that said, you are right, we will disagree. It does look like things will work out for the betterment of Iraq. That is a good thing. I just don't feel that the cost to the United States has been worth it. How well things are going in Iraq is a tribute to the skill and bravery of our American soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines. We should all be very gratefull for the service they render. Their service and sacrifices make it all the more important that our President be someone that can balance the cost against the gain for America.

I should have been more precise. I don't think things have turned out well for the United States. The cost in lives, treasure and national focus have worked to our long term detriment. We have strengthened the position of Iran. With that said, you are right, we will disagree. It does look like things will work out for the betterment of Iraq. That is a good thing. I just don't feel that the cost to the United States has been worth it. How well things are going in Iraq is a tribute to the skill and bravery of our American soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines. We should all be very gratefull for the service they render. Their service and sacrifices make it all the more important that our President be someone that can balance the cost against the gain for America.

Libya gave up a nuclear development program that we did not know it had and Kadafi has warned Iran to do the same or face the fate of Iraq. Iran is also now flanked on two sides by countries friendly to the US and we have boots on the ground as Iran is threatening to attack Israel with nukes. All side benefits of helping free Iraq from tyranny and helping them to establish the first Muslim democracy in the Middle East. Sacrifices have been great but the benefits have been much greater than liberals will ever admit.

Libya gave up a nuclear development program that we did not know it had and Kadafi has warned Iran to do the same or face the fate of Iraq. Iran is also now flanked on two sides by countries friendly to the US and we have boots on the ground as Iran is threatening to attack Israel with nukes. All side benefits of helping free Iraq from tyranny and helping them to establish the first Muslim democracy in the Middle East. Sacrifices have been great but the benefits have been much greater than liberals will ever admit.

 

Or conservatives will ever confess.

 

Aces, I don't see how we can possibly hold two fronts (Iraq and Afghanistan) while marching into Iran at the same time. That's the same strategy of Custer and Little Big Horn. If our attack was on Iran and not ground invasion, maybe we can make a statement. But to think we can put "boots on the ground" in Iran and hold the other two fronts is almost beyond risky. It would invite a resurgence in Iraq from Syria's borders and a counteroffensive from the Taliban on the Pakistan/Afghani border. While those troops are tied up there - how will we have enough "boots on the ground" to invade and conquer Iran. We don't have that kind of manpower ala WW II.

Or conservatives will ever confess.

 

Aces, I don't see how we can possibly hold two fronts (Iraq and Afghanistan) while marching into Iran at the same time. That's the same strategy of Custer and Little Big Horn. If our attack was on Iran and not ground invasion, maybe we can make a statement. But to think we can put "boots on the ground" in Iran and hold the other two fronts is almost beyond risky. It would invite a resurgence in Iraq from Syria's borders and a counteroffensive from the Taliban on the Pakistan/Afghani border. While those troops are tied up there - how will we have enough "boots on the ground" to invade and conquer Iran. We don't have that kind of manpower ala WW II.

 

I don't think we have enough boots of our own to handle Iran while at the same time tied up in Iraq and Afghanistan. But depending on what triggered us to go into Iran, I'm hopeful that our allies and other supporters of Israel would contribute boots also. Plus Iran must be concerned about our ability to inflict major damage via the air and without boots.

I should have been more precise. I don't think things have turned out well for the United States. The cost in lives, treasure and national focus have worked to our long term detriment. We have strengthened the position of Iran. With that said, you are right, we will disagree. It does look like things will work out for the betterment of Iraq. That is a good thing. I just don't feel that the cost to the United States has been worth it. How well things are going in Iraq is a tribute to the skill and bravery of our American soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines. We should all be very gratefull for the service they render. Their service and sacrifices make it all the more important that our President be someone that can balance the cost against the gain for America.

 

We may very well have strenghtened Iran, but I think it is temporary. But if Iraq continues to improve and turns out like I hope it will, one can legitimately conclude that Iran and Syria will then both be weakened. It is that very reason, I believe, that Iran and Syria have worked so hard and will continue to work so hard to undermine our efforts to improve Iraq. An open, free, prosperous and democratic Iraq is a great threat to the dictatorships in Syria and Iran. They know that if democracy is successful in Iraq, the people in Syria and Iran will be emboldened to want the same. Freedom and the desire to see your children live a free, secure and prosperous life is a very contagious thing.

I don't think we have enough boots of our own to handle Iran while at the same time tied up in Iraq and Afghanistan. But depending on what triggered us to go into Iran, I'm hopeful that our allies and other supporters of Israel would contribute boots also. Plus Iran must be concerned about our ability to inflict major damage via the air and without boots.

 

To me that is our only option. Aces mentioned the boots and that's why I wanted to bring that to light. Having the boots won't matter in going to Iran right now.

 

You mentioned the key, "What triggers our move?" That's where we have to be careful and where the past (Iraq) may haunt us with our allies. :thumb:

To me that is our only option. Aces mentioned the boots and that's why I wanted to bring that to light. Having the boots won't matter in going to Iran right now.

 

You mentioned the key, "What triggers our move?" That's where we have to be careful and where the past (Iraq) may haunt us with our allies. :thumb:

 

I don't disagree with what you said. Which, getting back to the candidates, leads me to believe that McCain would be a better choice. Perhaps this is flawed logic, (I don't think so), but I'd think that given McCain's experience in foreign policy and military matters, he'd have much greater credibility in talking with the leaders of our allies and making the case as to why they need to support our actions in Iran. No disrespect to Obama, but I'd think he'd have a hard time being taken seriously given his inexperience. I'm sure he'd try to surround himself with the best advisors, but in one on one private meetings between leaders, I just have to think that what McCain was saying would have more credibility than Obama.

And your bolded part isn't straight from the Democratic class war playbook?

 

I will not engage in a pointless debate on the merits of progressive taxation. It is a bedrock principle of tax structure in this country and always will be. The Republican Party has lost its bloody mind. No longer is it the party of fiscal responsibility, nor can it even claim moral superiority over the Democrats based on its fiscal policies. Its leaders are falling all over themselves to sacrifice the country's economic future on the altar of outlandish tax cuts. George H.W. Bush was apparently the last Republican who understood that being the custodian for the country's fiscal house requires tough, tough choices. Make no mistake, I am in no way, shape, or form enamored with Democratic fiscal policies, however the Republican Party has completely abandoned its once-powerful claim to fiscal superiority. The pack of clowns we have running the party today have chosen to shirk their responsibility to make hard choices, instead deciding to cut taxes at every opportunity and not worry about the devastating consequences that will be visited on future generations. This is most certainly taxation without representation. If you can't or won't acknowledge the moral reprehensibility of these policies, we can stop wasting bandwidth right now.

 

 

 

 

If you are so worried about your children, I think you better be first concerned about electing a President that has significant military, foreign policy and intelligence experience. If we stumble into WWIII while Obama is learning on the job or get subjected to repeated terrorist attacks on our country and its people while Obama gets up to speed, the amount of debt our children are going to be saddled with isn't going to be my most pressing concern.

 

 

Funny, but I seriously doubt you voiced these same concerns when casting your vote for GWB in 2000. Up to that time, Bush had run an oil company into the ground, managed a baseball team, and governed Texas. Not exactly the significant military, foreign policy, and intelligence experience you pine for in a presidential candidate. Have you had an epiphany since then or do you just have a double standard?

 

FWIW, I am undecided on who I will vote for.

I don't disagree with what you said. Which, getting back to the candidates, leads me to believe that McCain would be a better choice. Perhaps this is flawed logic, (I don't think so), but I'd think that given McCain's experience in foreign policy and military matters, he'd have much greater credibility in talking with the leaders of our allies and making the case as to why they need to support our actions in Iran. No disrespect to Obama, but I'd think he'd have a hard time being taken seriously given his inexperience. I'm sure he'd try to surround himself with the best advisors, but in one on one private meetings between leaders, I just have to think that what McCain was saying would have more credibility than Obama.

 

No, I tend to agree with you there. McCain seems to have a pretty good handle on foreign affairs and is seemingly one of his strong suits.