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.

The boots are for support and intimidation purposes. The friendly airstrips and short supply lines are strategic advantages - along with the fact that Iran knows, as Kadafi observed, the US has already toppled one regional bully in the neigborhood. The big stick has been used, so US words will carry more weight if wielded properly.

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 actually voted for McCain in the 2000 primary. In the general election, I did vote for Bush over Gore. I think its logical to conclude that Gore had more experience as the sitting VP in foreign policy matters than Bush did. I weighed such factor very heavily before I decided to vote. Did you?

 

And the world has become a much more dangerous place since November of 1999. Russia is back with a vengence; terrorism has become more widespread and even more violent. Iran either has or in process of developing nukes. N. Korea is probably going to have them. China has become not only a military force but an economic one that must be skillfully addressed. Honestly if Bush was running today with the same credentials that he possessed in 1999 and there was a much more experienced (in foreign policy and military matters) Democrat running against him that wasn't of the extreme left wing of the party, I'd likely vote for the Democrat.

 

And for what its worth, I do not agree at all, not one iota, with the concept of a progressive income tax. The wealthy may have a moral obligation to give more, but I do not think they should be forced to give more in the form of taxes as I consider such to be a confiscation of property. I find the progressive income tax morally reprehensible. I also think the estate tax is wrong.

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.

 

 

In this case, NOTHING would make me happier than to be wrong. From your computer to God's ear.

I actually voted for McCain in the 2000 primary. In the general election, I did vote for Bush over Gore. I think its logical to conclude that Gore had more experience as the sitting VP in foreign policy matters than Bush did. I weighed such factor very heavily before I decided to vote. Did you?

 

And the world has become a much more dangerous place since November of 1999. Russia is back with a vengence; terrorism has become more widespread and even more violent. Iran either has or in process of developing nukes. N. Korea is probably going to have them. China has become not only a military force but an economic one that must be skillfully addressed. Honestly if Bush was running today with the same credentials that he possessed in 1999 and there was a much more experienced (in foreign policy and military matters) Democrat running against him that wasn't of the extreme left wing of the party, I'd likely vote for the Democrat.

 

And for what its worth, I do not agree at all, not one iota, with the concept of a progressive income tax. The wealthy may have a moral obligation to give more, but I do not think they should be forced to give more in the form of taxes as I consider such to be a confiscation of property. I find the progressive income tax morally reprehensible. I also think the estate tax is wrong.

 

Well said. :thumb: I am confused by those who think otherwise.

I actually voted for McCain in the 2000 primary. In the general election, I did vote for Bush over Gore. I think its logical to conclude that Gore had more experience as the sitting VP in foreign policy matters than Bush did. I weighed such factor very heavily before I decided to vote. Did you?

 

 

I also voted for McCain over Bush in the 2000 primary and for Bush over Gore in the general election. I considered many factors, although foreign policy experience was admittedly trumped by other considerations. Based on his pledges not to engage in nation-building, and to carry out a "humble foreign policy", I believed that Bush would be a level-headed leader in these areas. Obviously, now well after the fact, I feel very strongly that this confidence was misplaced.

 

 

And the world has become a much more dangerous place since November of 1999. Russia is back with a vengence; terrorism has become more widespread and even more violent. Iran either has or in process of developing nukes. N. Korea is probably going to have them. China has become not only a military force but an economic one that must be skillfully addressed.

 

One thing I really struggle with regarding McCain is that he still declares (at least publicly) that the decision to invade Iraq was correct. I believe that this is probably driven, in part, by political considerations and that he may think he has to say that even if he doesn't believe it. You and I disagree rather sharply over whether the Iraq invasion was a wise decision, so I imagine that in your eyes, McCain's position reflects a strength. But because I believe the invasion was a mistake, it causes me to question his foreign policy judgement on a fundamental level, regardless of his experience. I will not dismiss Obama out of hand for his lack of significant foreign policy experience, because I believe him to be an intelligent, deliberative person who will carefully consider the input and recommendations of advisors.

 

I expect to further develop my opinions during the debates.

I also voted for McCain over Bush in the 2000 primary and for Bush over Gore in the general election. I considered many factors, although foreign policy experience was admittedly trumped by other considerations. Based on his pledges not to engage in nation-building, and to carry out a "humble foreign policy", I believed that Bush would be a level-headed leader in these areas. Obviously, now well after the fact, I feel very strongly that this confidence was misplaced.

 

 

 

 

One thing I really struggle with regarding McCain is that he still declares (at least publicly) that the decision to invade Iraq was correct. I believe that this is probably driven, in part, by political considerations and that he may think he has to say that even if he doesn't believe it. You and I disagree rather sharply over whether the Iraq invasion was a wise decision, so I imagine that in your eyes, McCain's position reflects a strength. But because I believe the invasion was a mistake, it causes me to question his foreign policy judgement on a fundamental level, regardless of his experience. I will not dismiss Obama out of hand for his lack of significant foreign policy experience, because I believe him to be an intelligent, deliberative person who will carefully consider the input and recommendations of advisors.

 

I expect to further develop my opinions during the debates.

 

 

I wish I had written that. :thumb:

 

You summed me up pretty well.

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.

 

:thumb: "Have your cake and eat it to" government has taken hold, but it must be paid for at some point down the line.

 

What I notice most often concerning Obama and taxation is that he has outlined his income tax plan as well as his stances on other forms of taxation (capital gains, oil company windfall profits), but there is less a criticism of these than a continued, overriding argument that all taxes will rise with his election.

I also voted for McCain over Bush in the 2000 primary and for Bush over Gore in the general election. I considered many factors, although foreign policy experience was admittedly trumped by other considerations. Based on his pledges not to engage in nation-building, and to carry out a "humble foreign policy", I believed that Bush would be a level-headed leader in these areas. Obviously, now well after the fact, I feel very strongly that this confidence was misplaced.

 

 

 

 

One thing I really struggle with regarding McCain is that he still declares (at least publicly) that the decision to invade Iraq was correct. I believe that this is probably driven, in part, by political considerations and that he may think he has to say that even if he doesn't believe it. You and I disagree rather sharply over whether the Iraq invasion was a wise decision, so I imagine that in your eyes, McCain's position reflects a strength. But because I believe the invasion was a mistake, it causes me to question his foreign policy judgement on a fundamental level, regardless of his experience. I will not dismiss Obama out of hand for his lack of significant foreign policy experience, because I believe him to be an intelligent, deliberative person who will carefully consider the input and recommendations of advisors.

 

I expect to further develop my opinions during the debates.

 

McCain's position on Iraq is a strength with me.

 

As someone in a high tax bracket, I don't like to see the deficit we are running in part due to the Iraq war funding. But Reagan's deficit spending broke apart the Soviet Union which I believe has been good for the US and millions of people no longer governed by Moscow. And if, as I believe, my tax money being spent in Iraq can do the things that I discussed earlier, I think it will have been a good investment.

 

As former military with friends that have been and/or are in Iraq, I'm as upset as anyone, maybe more so than a lot of people, with the deaths incurred by our military. I have a feeling that McCain, as a former POW whom suffered mightily, doesn't take the harms placed in the way of our military members lightly either. But most military members understand the nature of their profession. They know and accept that what they do is dangerous and there will be times that they are asked to make sacrifices, maybe even the ultimate sacrifice, to further our national interests. If our invasion of Iraq results in the middle East being more secure in the future, while the loss of life will still be tragic, it will have been worth it.

 

 

I don't disagree that Obama is smart ( I think we have documentative proof that he is smart) and maybe even deliberative (although I have no documentative proof of that). The problem that I have with your analysis is I believe that, regardless of how smart or deliberative a person is, if that person has little knowledge or experience in a subject matter, it is very difficult to know enough about a subject to question his advisors thoroughly enough. I am sure that Obama, given a couple of years to learn about foreign policy, intelligence and military matters would develop that background knowledge. But I don't think our enemies are necessarily going to sit back and give him that benefit. I don't think we have the luxury of Obama getting several years of OTJ training given the world we are living in and the threats we are facing. I think Putin is a brilliant man and realizes with Bush being a lame duck, he can do almost anything without fear of reprisal by us in the next several months. If Obama is elected, I think Putin is going to take full advantage of Obama's inexperience.

 

And if our enemies act before Obama develops that background knowledge, Obama is going to be forced to act quickly based on his advisors advise. If, as some claim, Bush was mislead by his advisors, due in large part to his inexperience in foreign policy, why couldn't that happen to Obama? I'll admit that Obama is apparently brighter than Bush, but I've been around a lot of brilliant people that didn't necessarily make the right decisions. You, to me, seem to be placing a lot of confidence in Obama's intelligence to make what will probably need to be very quick decisions involving our national security, with no or little experience to draw on to make that decision or question the advise of his advisors. I'm not as confident that raw intelligence will enable him to do so.

 

So we'll just respectfully disagree on our differences.

Leatherneck, you make good points about your perspective of the differences between Obama and McCain with respect to the war in Iraq. However, let's think further, as the war in Iraq is now a retrospective scenario. I'll have to admit though, that I called it as a potential quagmire for the US and the military before it even started. I also said that those who were saying it would be a quick "in and out", (I can only assume equating it to Kuwait), were dead wrong. And Bush was one who assured us that the US was going to "shock and awe" the Iraqi's. :creepy:

 

Thinking toward the future, I would hope that whomever is the commander-in-chief will be less likely to try such tactics. I'm pretty certain Obama wouldn't. I'm less certain of McCain. As you and others so eloquently point out, he has a previous record upon which I can draw my conclusion-the War in Iraq.

 

Wars now are not fought in the same manner as in years past. Traditional warfare is really only marginally effective. Tactics that previously would have quelled our enemies, now only slow them down.

 

I believe our "enemy" is in many ways ourselves. Yes, others are jealous of us. Yet, still others are ideologically opposed to us. We now fight smart, educated (many in our own institutions) enemies, leading a mixture of educated people and desperate, uneducated people. We don't battle "soldiers", we battle "terrorists". The battlefield is global, and nearly impossible to predict, or prevent, despite our best efforts.

 

The next leader of the US needs to lead us with caution. We cannot, IMO, assert our influence so shortsightedly as we've done in the past. And, as bitter a pill as it may be to swallow, we may need to consider negotiation as a tactic. I absolutely believe that strong-arming will only lead to further problems and strengthening of our "enemies".

 

I certainly don't feel McCain is open to such a "radical" idea. I don't feel many Americans are. But that's what I believe is our future, and I do feel Obama would be open to such a novel approach.

McCain's position on Iraq is a strength with me.

 

As someone in a high tax bracket, I don't like to see the deficit we are running in part due to the Iraq war funding. But Reagan's deficit spending broke apart the Soviet Union which I believe has been good for the US and millions of people no longer governed by Moscow. And if, as I believe, my tax money being spent in Iraq can do the things that I discussed earlier, I think it will have been a good investment.

 

As former military with friends that have been and/or are in Iraq, I'm as upset as anyone, maybe more so than a lot of people, with the deaths incurred by our military. I have a feeling that McCain, as a former POW whom suffered mightily, doesn't take the harms placed in the way of our military members lightly either. But most military members understand the nature of their profession. They know and accept that what they do is dangerous and there will be times that they are asked to make sacrifices, maybe even the ultimate sacrifice, to further our national interests. If our invasion of Iraq results in the middle East being more secure in the future, while the loss of life will still be tragic, it will have been worth it.

 

 

I don't disagree that Obama is smart ( I think we have documentative proof that he is smart) and maybe even deliberative (although I have no documentative proof of that). The problem that I have with your analysis is I believe that, regardless of how smart or deliberative a person is, if that person has little knowledge or experience in a subject matter, it is very difficult to know enough about a subject to question his advisors thoroughly enough. I am sure that Obama, given a couple of years to learn about foreign policy, intelligence and military matters would develop that background knowledge. But I don't think our enemies are necessarily going to sit back and give him that benefit. I don't think we have the luxury of Obama getting several years of OTJ training given the world we are living in and the threats we are facing. I think Putin is a brilliant man and realizes with Bush being a lame duck, he can do almost anything without fear of reprisal by us in the next several months. If Obama is elected, I think Putin is going to take full advantage of Obama's inexperience.

 

And if our enemies act before Obama develops that background knowledge, Obama is going to be forced to act quickly based on his advisors advise. If, as some claim, Bush was mislead by his advisors, due in large part to his inexperience in foreign policy, why couldn't that happen to Obama? I'll admit that Obama is apparently brighter than Bush, but I've been around a lot of brilliant people that didn't necessarily make the right decisions. You, to me, seem to be placing a lot of confidence in Obama's intelligence to make what will probably need to be very quick decisions involving our national security, with no or little experience to draw on to make that decision or question the advise of his advisors. I'm not as confident that raw intelligence will enable him to do so.

 

So we'll just respectfully disagree on our differences.

 

 

Can you give some examples of events over the past 30 years when a president needed to make 'very quick decisions' involving our national security? Based on my recollection of recent U.S. history, every U.S. president has had ample time to consider a course of action involving the military. In the absolute worst case of a nuclear strike (when there is very little time to react), I believe the Pentagon has conducted extensive simulations (war games) of various scenarios and has developed recommended courses of action. I don't doubt that having military experience is beneficial in the role of Commander in Chief. I remember reading about Kennedy during the Cuban Missile Crisis being extremely concerned about accidentally tipping off WWIII because, "there's always some SOB who doesn't get the message." He understood the complexity of the military organization and the opportunities for miscommunication, etc. But without a historical example, I'm drawing a blank on the need for split second decision making in the White House. These guys are not going to be race car drivers or emergency room doctors.

Bill Clinton made some quick decisions not to accept Bin Laden and I believe that those decisions qualify as national security blunders. We really have no way of knowing how many quick decisions have been made that have impacted our national security. When and if the nation's survival depends on a quick decision there will be no do-overs like Obama's statement on the Georgia invasion.

When W was informed that the U.S. was under attack on 9/11, he sat there for several minutes holding "bill the goat" or whatever children's book he was reading that morning. Not that his actions in those few minutes would have likely made any difference because there was not enough information to act on. I suppose I should be thankful he didn't shoot from the hip in that moment and order a nuclear strike against Finland.

 

Can anyone give an example of when a president had to make a very quick decision given the information available?

When W was informed that the U.S. was under attack on 9/11, he sat there for several minutes holding "bill the goat" or whatever children's book he was reading that morning. Not that his actions in those few minutes would have likely made any difference because there was not enough information to act on. I suppose I should be thankful he didn't shoot from the hip in that moment and order a nuclear strike against Finland.

 

Can anyone give an example of when a president had to make a very quick decision given the information available?

 

What do you consider a quick decision?

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.

 

LN, many see the above (all true) as rationalizing. While I'm not sure we will ever have true stabilization, there have been positive outcomes nonetheless.

 

However...

 

Many cannot get over the fact that we went into Iraq not simply to overturn a ruthless leader but instead to nip the supposed problem of WMDs. With most believing that a)there were no WMDs and b)it was not the real reason we went in, its tough to justify the "other" positive outcomes.

What do you consider a quick decision?

 

A decision required in an hour or less.