Obama? No thanks! - part two
Posted on February 13, 2008 by Carey
You can find part one here.
Let me reiterate - my goal in these posts is simply to say why I will not be voting for Barack Obama in the upcoming election. I’m outlining some of his positions, found on his own website, and telling you why I do not agree with them.
One person has replied already and accused me of “defaming” Senator Obama - which is ridiculous. In order to defame him I’d need to say things about him which are not true, in other words, to slander him. That’s NOT what I’m doing. I’m taking HIS own stated positions and telling you why I am not in agreement with them. With that said…
-
Opposition to the privatization of Social Security - Barack Obama is strongly against allowing those vested in Social Security to decide exactly how and where their investment will go (privatization) in order to better serve them. I think it’s a bad idea to continue pumping money into a program that has worked moderately in the past but is now quickly being depleted of its resources due to mismanagement and misuse. People should not be FORCED to depend on the government for their retirement, they should be allowed to make their own choices about where their retirement dollars go. It’s THEIR money in the first place, not the government’s. It’s hard to trust a government to “be there for you” when the government itself has not proven to be the best at financial management (i.e. national debt, budgets that don’t balance, etc.). Government-only Social Security? No thanks!
-
Continued expansion of government - Senator Obama’s “blueprint” does not specifically state it this way, but many of his ideas and plans do indeed expand government beyond its already bloated state. Many of his ideas are no doubt well-intentioned and good, but require too much increase in the size of a government that is already too large. And where do those increases come from? The only revenue source available is taxes. It doesn’t take a math whiz to know that increased programs will have to mean increased taxes. Some examples of how he would increase the size of government, from his own plan: (1) Creation of an independent watchdog agency to monitor lobbying efforts. (2) Universal Health Care (see yesterday’s post). (3) Doubling of funds going to after-school programs. (4) Increased tax credits for low-income families. (5) Matching of retirement savings at 50% for the first $1000 saved. (6) Increase the amount of government help given through the Low Income Home Energy Assitance program. Increase the size of the federal government? No thanks!
-
The slippery slope of racial profiling - Obama’s position is that racial profiling is wrong - in all cases. In general I totally agree. Nobody should be unfairly treated because of race. BUT, it is a FACT that only Arabic males were involved in the 9/11 attack on the United States. Doesn’t it make sense that people matching that profile would be “more suspect” in additional screenings at airports? I mean come on! One of my friends was going through security at the airport and guess who was picked out for the “additional screening?” A woman with two kids under 4, one of whom was throwing up at the time. A nun. And my friend, his wife, and his 3 kids. Doesn’t wisdom tell us that it’s not wrong to use the facts of an issue to take appropriate precautions? If it were white males over the age of 35 who were known to be terrorists (my racial profile), I’d gladly submit to extra screening on every flight I had to take - to ensure that our country and citizens are safe. Absolute statements against racial profiling? No thanks!
-
Iraq withdrawal timelines - Obama opposed the Iraq war from the beginning. I’m fine with that. But beyond that he promises that within 16 months of becoming President, he will have all the troops out of Iraq. Do you know what will happen then? Most attacks and problems in Iraq will stop almost immediately. The opposition will be biding their time, stock-piling weapons, building up infrastructure behind the scenes, so that the minute foreign troops are gone, they can overwhelm the weak Iraqi government and take over the country. The situation would be worse than it is now, no doubt. Announcing a timeline for withdrawal is not only a political ploy to get the vote of anti-war folks, but is also equal to saying, “O.K. enemy, in 16 months we are going to surrender and you can have free reign of the country. Have fun!” In his defense, Senator Obama says that he would be working hard with the Iraqi government to get it up to speed for the date of withdrawal. But that process is one with many variables and can’t be limited to a timeline of any sort, because nobody can predict how that process will work itself out. It’s naive to think it could be predicted. Stated withdrawal timelines for Iraq? No thanks!
-
Diplomacy with Iran - I don’t WANT a war with Iran. It would be horrible on many levels and probably very bad for our own country. But we have to leave that card on the table with a regime like is present in Iran. Senator Obama doesn’t want to even make that card available. He believes that discussion and sanctions can deter what is a truly maniacal regime in Iran. Does anyone remember the Iran hostage crisis? The philosophy and people in charge then are the same as today. They have the same Anti-American agenda. They deny the Holocaust ever happened. They have vowed to wipe Israel off the map. They have repeatedly referred to our country as their enemies, the “Great Satan.” They were duplicitous then and are duplicitous now. Hey Iran, fool the U.S. once, shame on the U.S. Fool the U.S. again, shame on Obama. Work for a trustworthy relationship with Iran? No thanks!
-
Undefined position on the family - I may be guilty of not digging deeply enough to find Senator Obama’s position on the traditional family, but I don’t think so. I couldn’t find anything on his website or “blueprint” that says if he supports marriage being as traditionally defined - “one man and one woman” or if he supports “gay marriage.” I’m sure he has said at some point, but I have not found it. I suspect I know the answer, but since I don’t I’ll refrain from speculating. Regardless, if it’s not important enough to him to state clearly, then I have to assume that he doesn’t take the issue seriously enough. No statement on the traditional famly? No thanks!
Filed under: World | Tagged: politics, Barack Obama, Senator Obama, Obama for President, Democratic candidates, Hillary Clinton, Obama and Clinton, Obama's views, Obama's beliefs, Democratic frontrunner, Presidential Campaign, Presidential race, President of the United States, United States politics, United States election
I suspect that you voted for GW Bush.
Thanks for your reply gasdocpol,
I did vote for “W”, and though I believe that he’s done what he thought best in most cases, I’m disappointed with some of the positions he has taken (or not taken) since the election. I generally tend to lean more “conservative” but even then don’t always agree with those who are elected from that camp. I think there’s a lot more that goes into being a political leader than simply a label of conservative or liberal, democrat or republican. Politics and government is a complex world that is a lot more difficult than most of us “armchair politicians” can imagine.
God do we have ourselves in a pickle in this country. Because Bush in particular, the GOP & Democrats have ruined our economy and perhaps the nation, people young and old are desperate for hope and something NEW! This is Obama’s genius mantra. Yet he doesnt have the political experience or the deep understanding of solutions. The Young like him, educated like him because he sounds intelligent, and of course blacks are rallying like their dream has come true…I think he is all words! & ego! like most politicians but without the Balls and Know How. Im depressed that he my be the Democratic choice, because the Republican choice is worse. Damn!
[...] a full-blown statist in their midst. Wrapped up in the banner of hope and unity is one seeking to expand the size of government drastically, promising programs and initiatives that would almost always require more bureaucracy, [...]
Thanks for the comment James,
I agree with much of what you said about Senator Obama’s appeal and lack of experience. I feel that we are seeing this sort of “reactionary” response a lot in our culture nowadays, in many contexts. God help us!
James Sontag
Some of us older people like Obama too. I am 69 years old and I drove from Central Illinois 5 times to campaign for Obama in Iowa freezing my butt off in the process.
I have been around the block a few times and I have some notions of experience and judgement.
I practiced medicine for 35 years, dealing in life and death situations. I was board certified in my specialty. I was a naval line officer before that and I was in charge of expensive ships at sea. I have an MBA.
The same principles appy to heath care, the military and business.
There is common sense which I define as the ability to make the right decision without the benefit of special training or experience.
There is years of experience, which in itself means nothing and can be classified in various ways.
1. There could be 20 years of meaningful experience.
2. There could be one year of experience 20 times.
3. There could be 20 years of blundering.
4. There could be any number of combinations and permutations of the above 3.
What is implied by “Years of experience” is that a certain amount of judgement has been acquired.
Judgement I would define as the ability to make a good decision by dint of training, experience and common sense. Judgement is the bottom line.
In October 2002, Barack Obama had acquired some combination of training and experience that combined with whatever common sense he had to demonstrate the requisite judgement. to to get it right on the Iraq invasion. Hillary did not.
In order to get the question of invading Iraq right, Obama needed to get other things right. Among them he needed to have sufficient grasp of international affairs to understand what would be the consequences of our unilateral invasion of an oil rich Arab country that had not attacked us and was no danger to us. He needed to accurately assess cost versus risk versus gain.in embarking on that military adventure. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Kerry, Biden, Hillary and Edwards among others all got those things wrong.
Does this make any sense to you?
Hi again James,
Yes, your points make sense - if I buy your initial assumption that Iraq was no danger to us. In hindsight, it appears that was likely the case, providing Sadaam did not hide his WMD in some other country - Syria for instance. (Isn’t it interesting that we KNOW he has used some types of WMD in the past, on his own people and on the Kurds, and yet we found NONE! Makes you wonder where it all went to…
The intel we had at the time (faulty as it seems to have been) gave reason to believe that Iraq was a danger at the time (WMD). I don’t think that George W. Bush or anyone else went in there KNOWING there were not actualy any WMD - I think they trusted their intel, which has proven to be very questionable. It’s one thing to be intentionally deceitful and another to make a mistake based on your best information.
I was in Baghdad 2005-2006, I was a combat medic, in the 3rd INfantry Division, the unit that spearheaded the invasion back in 03. My experiance was one of awakening, and cultural exploration, as well as tears and blood. Here are somethings that I learned, in my 5 years in the army.
I realized that the general population usually has no idea about what is going. I learned that a liberal agenda is always against progress when it comes to conflict, choosing to bury, instead of face the problem at hand. Culturally the arab countries are not weak, but they are very frugal and easily swayed with emotion. I saw this constantly on a day to day bases, in a city bigger than LA, where car bombs and snipers, constantly changed public opinion. Here are some facts that america needs to know.
There is a global threat of terrorism, evident by attacks all around the globe, we needed to take a stand somewhere in the middleast, in order combat this threat, on foreign soil, rather than on the streets of america. The governmen catches 30 to 40- plots on a monthly basis, to attack targets inside the US. These include cases where people have depleted uranium, for a nuclear or dirty attack. The threat I faced in Baghdad wasnt greatly composed of Iraqis, but rather Jihadist from all over the world, who came at the beckoning of their skeik Osama Bin Laden, who pushed the bouderies of Jihad from national to global. These are facts, not items in question, or some agenda waiting to be discussed, and while the world ignores them, they grow stronger.
When I was in Iraq, we confiscated some letters, written from the once powerful Zarqawi (leader of Al qaeda for Baghdad) before he was killed. These letters adressed the population of jihadist in the area, saying, and I quote “take advantage of our time, while the infidels are here on known soil, for soon we will have to travel far distances to reach them”.
we needed no other reason in my mind, to go into Iraq, than the simple fact that Sadaam, supported terrorist operations all around the word, and he did have WMDs, we found them, they just werent the kind we were looking for. Iraq is only the battleground of our choosing, in a war that spans the world. In choosing to go into iraq, bush chose to keep the fight off american soil. This is only in conflict with a global mindset, that cares more for global control, than the good of a certain people.
Josiah
[...] Obama? No thanks! - part two [...]
[...] No thanks! - part two February 13th, 2008 LaTease Rikard wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptLet me reiterate - my goal in these [...]
RE: Obama’s stance on iraq. please don’t forget he was not a US senator when he made his initial viewpoints known - so his opinion was non-binding and he had no voting impact on the decision. to say now, 5-6 years later “i told you so” is comparable to me trying to say “i opposed the war, i’m right - the president was wrong” considering i’m just an average us citizen - hindsight is always 20-20. at least the seated senators at the time who either voted for - or against - knew the extent of the facts. Sorry Senator Obama - all of the national security secrets as it relates to possible war are not shared with state-level senators. so to claim you made a good decision at that time is ignorant - because you are citing a decision you made at a time when you were suffering a severe lack of information.
if you believe the president was wrong in believing there were WMD in iraq - then you’re wrong yourself. Saddam said himself he had them, was using them (killing his own citizens and diposing of the bodies in mass graves - which we have found). how soon we forget that chemical and biological weapons are in fact weapons of mass destruction - how a small amount of biological or chemical agents can kill thousands … the basic definition of “WMD” - its the media that is imposing the threshhold of “we have to find an atomic weapon” to justify our action.
And in case you were wondering, purely because i find it humourous, that this has never made the news — The leaders of iraq have asked for supplimental funding (on the scale of billiions of dollars) to clean up RADIOACTIVE WASTE and have scientific studies from international UN-sponored scientists that prove saddam was storing radioactive material in remote areas of the desert - in order to hide it from us. what type of radioactive stuff would you hide? not the stuff for peaceful purposes.. that’s for sure!
during the initial offensive attack of march-may 2003, talk to the us military units in kirkuk - who located, in a large-scale RV parking lot - several mobile chemical laboratories capable of producing chemical toxins for use in munitions. talk to the soldiers who, when securing this site, were caught in an ambush and injured (you can’t talk with the others, because many were killed). They’ll tell you first hand that saddam had chemical and biological weapons capabilities.
one of the biggest misunderstandings is regarding “international backing to go into iraq …” the authorities were granted to take military action against iraq by the UN in 1991….. under Bush sr. If you do a LITTLE research into the genesis of the conflict in the middle east - you’ll realize that the US was not just dealing hastily with a dictator that was just starting to upset the international community … he had been doing it for over a DECADE. the UN authorized military force - and the only reason it wasn’t done earlier was because there were lengthy (and unsuccessful) efforts to deal with the problem diplomatically.
people who equate Iraq to North Korea and try to say “oh, we’re going to invade north korea now too, right?” well, If north korea continues to test delivery systems like they are currently, and continue to develop their nuclear weapons program - which they admit they are doing in the news (again, i’d recommend people read the INTERNATIONAL news - bbc and such) - for over a decade? i’d hope SOMEONE would make sure they didn’t do what they say they are trying to do…
And finally - for those of you that think that a president - regardless of party - has such autonomous authority to wage a war - and you have this insane desire to say its one person’s fault — just remember: Congress approved it - Congress funded it - and Congress continued to (and continues to) support it. you hear media reps of minority voices saying its wrong , etc… but then they (senators and congressmen) continue to vote FOR it - FOR funding - and FOR finishing what we have started.
who elects congress? we the people do. so when you want someone to blame - you can either do what the news, saturday night live, the tonight show, or other media outlets do - and pick a fall guy like the president and claim “its all his fault” - argue for impeachment - citing that “he got us into this”- or you could look in the mirror and realize that your vote (or lack there of) is the real reason we have a congress like we do. YOU voted, through your representatives, for the war in iraq -and for the funding to continue. YOU voted to entrust our senators and congressmen to make educated decisions based on facts.
do you really think you know more about the intentions of a dictator and his military capabilites - and the possible global ramifications of his actions - than our national level leadership? If so - you need to run for office. even with as much research that i have done - and things which i have experienced first hand - i’m objective enough to admit i don’t know all the contributing factors which our national leadership takes into account when making such a monumental and historic decision. why is the typical american so quick to assume they are smarter than our national leaders who have an inordinate amount of information more than they do?
my sourcing: i spent 24 months straight in iraq. i’ve seen the mass graves with my own eyes. i’ve seen the chemical labs with my own eyes. i read the published environmental study published stating they had a severe environmental problem with radioactive waste contaminating the water supply of remote villages. i’ve lost subordinate soldiers to terrorist attacks - and i’ve met with leaders in iraq on a national and provincial level who are on the verge of TEARS OF HAPPINESS that we are there. they are amazed that people from the united states care more about them than some of their own citizens care about their own country. they understand where they were before, where they are now, and the possible ramifications of a pre-mature redeployment of our security forces.
Its sad to see a presidential candidate say - in absolute terms - that regardless of imputs from the chairman of the joint chief of staff, regardless of requests from the president / national leadership of iraq - regardless of the possibility that our actions may spark a civi war and cause hundreds of thousands of more people to die - that they absolutely will immediately redeploy our forces if elected president. I’m afraid of any presidential candidate that claims to be able to predict the future and has made up their mind even without all current information.
if you know which candidate said that in a recent debate - then you’re in an extreme minority of people actually doing their homework in preparation of the upcoming election.
do your homework, make an educated decision - and VOTE. then you can complain when things don’t go your way.
1. Obama’s FORESIGHT in October 2000 was 20/20
2. Saddam was evil but he was neither stupid enough nor crazy enough to attack the USA for a number of reasons including the fact that the USA spent more on military than the next 12 countries combined. Even if, indeed, Saddam had WMDs would not be likely to use them against the USA?
3. If 19 hijackers (none of them Iraqis) were willing to give up their lives to harm Americans , What would be the effect of the USA invading and occupying an oil rich Arab country which had not attacked the USA and was no danger to the USA.
4. GW Bush put his finger on arguably the worst possible reaction to 9/11.
5. Obama was able to see the forest despite the trees. Too many people let the trees confuse them.
Adam,
Thanks for your comments. I always find your insight illuminating on things like this, especially!
gasdocpol,
To claim it was “foresight” on Obama’s part to oppose the war, is giving him FAR too much credit! I dont’ deny that he made a stand that he thought was right, or that he did so for possibly legitimate reasons… but to claim that as proof for his “fit” for the Presidency is very small proof indeed…
Opposing the iraq invasion was a minority opinion in October 2002.
Obama came to his conclusion based on information that was known to everyone.
Obama :
1.Identified the relavant facts.an defined the problem
2. Assigned priorities appropriately
3. Applied common sense
4. Displayed a knowledge and understanding of international affairs.
5. Displayed a knowedge and understanding of the use of military force.
6. He predicted with uncanney accuracy what could well be the result of the invasion.
Maybe you personally were convinced that the invasion was a good idea and have sympathy for those who were equally duped but it would be better if we had a President who can sort things out the way Obama did.
gasdocpol,
If you haven’t you should read Adam’s reply above. He states “firsthand” facts that militate AGAINST much of what you are insisting upon. As well, From #1 of your points you are making statements that are YOUR opinion (that you are entitled to), NOT facts…
We will continue to disagree, I’m sure…
1. Obama’s FORESIGHT in October 2000 was 20/20
- In your opinion. If you fail to recognize the potential global impact of a dictator who previously invaded another country (Kuwait) - in order to try and gain a foothold in Saudi Arabia (his ultimate goal, stepping stone approach to controlling the vast majority of the worlds oil - aka wealth) - then you are letting your opinion of a state senator’s “foresight” cloud the overwhelming evidence that hundreds of thousands of people would die. Maybe you believe that a hundred thousand lives of another country’s citizensare not our concern, but that is where you and I differ. there are human rights travesties occuring all through the world - we can’t impact them all - but iraq was one supported by the international community, authoried by the UN, and viewed by the world as the “most important issue” to be dealt with at that time.
2. Saddam was evil but he was neither stupid enough nor crazy enough to attack the USA for a number of reasons including the fact that the USA spent more on military than the next 12 countries combined. Even if, indeed, Saddam had WMDs would not be likely to use them against the USA?
Because a stupid, crazy man (both subjective terms by the way, one man’s crazy may be seen as brilliance or defiance to authority) –would use sarin gas against a third of his country’s population? I’d hope you’d call any world leader “crazy” that did this … to claim otherwise, you’re ignoring the circa 50 years of death saddam brought his country.
Yes, our defense budget is significant. but so is our GDP. A free market economy creates wealth and opportunity (Thomas Friedman writes several excellent books on the world economy) - and we have learned from the past that a strong military helps keep us safe. Can you imagine how the Cold War would have turned out if we did not have a strong military deterring the USSR from invading / attacking us? There were several movies out that provide hollywood’s best guess - special effects of the 80’s however weren’t that great!
all in all - our miltary is not used to conquer countries and aquire land. We have not taken a drop of profits from iraq’s oil - we have not taken a square foot of land - and one day, we will come home and Iraq will have the means to govern themselves without assistance.
3. If 19 hijackers (none of them Iraqis) were willing to give up their lives to harm Americans , What would be the effect of the USA invading and occupying an oil rich Arab country which had not attacked the USA and was no danger to the USA.
- although i never argued that the liberation of the iraqi people was directly related to 9/11, its a common perception - and i agree its a reality because of the links throughout the middle east (and world) of Al Qa’ida. Iraq as a stand-alone issue because of the human rights violations of saddam and his potential danger to other countries - and us - was justified (see previous argument) for over a decade. 9/11 changed the way the US viewed potential threats - and our government decided to be proactive versus reactive.
your last point regarding the impact of offensive action against a oil rich country with no threat towards the US i presume is an attempt to put iraq into that category - which I believe you’d change your mind if looked at the situation from another angle …
compare the iraq war to WWII. when did we get involved? in a reactive manner after thousands of people died in pearl harbor. how many people died in the world up to the point we entered the war? hundreds of thousands of people. how many people did the united states lose after starting military campaigns in europe? hundreds of thousands. how many people died when we deployed two nuclear weapons against japan? i shudder to imagine - lets just say “a lot” …..
so our nation’s leadership has a dictator in the middle east who has killed hundreds of thousands of his own citizens…. do we wait until it gets to the point we need to react? or should we be poactive and control the situation? the best way to prepare for the future is to learn from the past …. while every soldier’s death is an absolute tragedy - and i have lost several very close friends - the numbers of a reactive war would dwarf our current losses. trying to stop a military while its on an offensive campaign is very difficult (i.e. study WW2) and its much easier - and less costly in human life - when done proactively.
regarding Al Qa’ida and other countries - or even their activities in iraq, the former leader of Al Qa’ida in iraq was jordanian …. his successor was eqyptian … and they have offices in pretty much every country in the world. to claim that iraq wasn’t connected or involved is just ignoring the facts. If you really believe GW BUSH is such a bad president - then how would you explain that the planning / pilot training / operational brainstorming for 9/11 absolutely started and happened right under our noses during the Clinton presidency?
Bush In Office - 20 Jan 2001…. Attacks 11 Sep 2001… you think this attack was carried out from beginning to end in under 8 months? by all estimates - even as documented in post-9/11 studies - this operation had been planned for several YEARS.
4. GW Bush put his finger on arguably the worst possible reaction to 9/11.
This is your opinion …. but it goes against what your nation’s leadership decided based on the facts at the time. Unless you’re in a similar position - which i am not and i presume you’re not as well - then I find it rather presumptuous that you believe you have enough facts to make an educated decision.
5. Obama was able to see the forest despite the trees. Too many people let the trees confuse them.
Obama did not have any optic with which to view the trees / forest accurately. A state senator’s scope of responsibility does not allow his access to the information needed to make an educated decision. Obama had the same access to information the mayor of Springfield, Illinois. To claim this position allowed him access to the facts needed to make an educated decision seems rather naive.
Those are great points Adam. I appreciate your perspective from personal experience “on the ground…”
. Obama’s FORESIGHT in October 2000 was 20/20
- In your opinion. If you fail to recognize the potential global impact of a dictator who previously invaded another country (Kuwait) - in order to try and gain a foothold in Saudi Arabia (his ultimate goal, stepping stone approach to controlling the vast majority of the worlds oil - aka wealth) - then you are letting your opinion of a state senator’s “foresight” cloud the overwhelming evidence that hundreds of thousands of people would die. Maybe you believe that a hundred thousand lives of another country’s citizensare not our concern, but that is where you and I differ. there are human rights travesties occuring all through the world - we can’t impact them all - but iraq was one supported by the international community, authoried by the UN, and viewed by the world as the “most important issue” to be dealt with at that time.
WHEN SADDAM INVADED IRAQ , THE WORLD, INCLUDING ARABS, ROSE UP AS ONE TO THROW HIM OUT DEMOLISHING HIS ARMY IN THE PROCESS.
OUR INVASION OF IRAQ HAS KILLED AT LEAST 100,000 IRAQI CIVILIANS. ( AND I CLAIM ,NEEDLESSLY)
THE US INVASION WAS CONDEMNED BY MOST OF THE WORLD EXCEPT FOR THE COALITION OF THE BRIBED AND THREATENED AND MOST OF THEM HAVE BAILED BY NOW. IN MOST CASES THE POPLE IN THE COUNTRIES IN QUESTION WERE AGAINST THE WAR.
2. Saddam was evil but he was neither stupid enough nor crazy enough to attack the USA for a number of reasons including the fact that the USA spent more on military than the next 12 countries combined. Even if, indeed, Saddam had WMDs would not be likely to use them against the USA?
Because a stupid, crazy man (both subjective terms by the way, one man’s crazy may be seen as brilliance or defiance to authority) –would use sarin gas against a third of his country’s population? I’d hope you’d call any world leader “crazy” that did this … to claim otherwise, you’re ignoring the circa 50 years of death saddam brought his country.
STUPID ,CRAZY AND SUICIDAL. SADDAM WOULD GUARATEE HIS OWN AND HIS COUNTRIES DESTRUCTION IF HE ATTACKED THE USA.
Yes, our defense budget is significant. but so is our GDP. A free market economy creates wealth and opportunity (Thomas Friedman writes several excellent books on the world economy) - and we have learned from the past that a strong military helps keep us safe. Can you imagine how the Cold War would have turned out if we did not have a strong military deterring the USSR from invading / attacking us? There were several movies out that provide hollywood’s best guess - special effects of the 80’s however weren’t that great!
WHAT HAS THE GDP; DEFENSE BUDGET RATIO DO WITH IT.? THE DIFFERENCE IN MILITARY POWER BETWEEN THE 2 COUNTRIES IS ASTRONOMICAL.
all in all - our miltary is not used to conquer countries and aquire land. We have not taken a drop of profits from iraq’s oil - we have not taken a square foot of land - and one day, we will come home and Iraq will have the means to govern themselves without assistance.
BECAUSE THE WAR WAS SCREWED UP DOES NOT MEAN THAT OIL WAS NOT THE MOTIVATION FOR THE WAR.
3. If 19 hijackers (none of them Iraqis) were willing to give up their lives to harm Americans , What would be the effect of the USA invading and occupying an oil rich Arab country which had not attacked the USA and was no danger to the USA.
- although i never argued that the liberation of the iraqi people was directly related to 9/11, its a common perception - and i agree its a reality because of the links throughout the middle east (and world) of Al Qa’ida. Iraq as a stand-alone issue because of the human rights violations of saddam and his potential danger to other countries - and us - was justified (see previous argument) for over a decade. 9/11 changed the way the US viewed potential threats - and our government decided to be proactive versus reactive.
BUSH AND CHENEY MADE A STUDIED EFFORT TO GIVE THE IMPRESSION THAT IRAQ CAUSED 9/11.
your last point regarding the impact of offensive action against a oil rich country with no threat towards the US i presume is an attempt to put iraq into that category - which I believe you’d change your mind if looked at the situation from another angle …
compare the iraq war to WWII. when did we get involved? in a reactive manner after thousands of people died in pearl harbor. how many people died in the world up to the point we entered the war? hundreds of thousands of people. how many people did the united states lose after starting military campaigns in europe? hundreds of thousands. how many people died when we deployed two nuclear weapons against japan? i shudder to imagine - lets just say “a lot” …..
THE US PREEMPTIVE INVASION RESEMBLED MORE HITLER’S INVASION OF POLAND.HITLER TOLD GERMANS THAT POLAND WAS A THREAT.
so our nation’s leadership has a dictator in the middle east who has killed hundreds of thousands of his own citizens…. do we wait until it gets to the point we need to react? or should we be poactive and control the situation? the best way to prepare for the future is to learn from the past …. while every soldier’s death is an absolute tragedy - and i have lost several very close friends - the numbers of a reactive war would dwarf our current losses. trying to stop a military while its on an offensive campaign is very difficult (i.e. study WW2) and its much easier - and less costly in human life - when done proactively.
BUSH WANTS EVEN MORE GIs TO DIE IN VAIN.
regarding Al Qa’ida and other countries - or even their activities in iraq, the former leader of Al Qa’ida in iraq was jordanian …. his successor was eqyptian … and they have offices in pretty much every country in the world. to claim that iraq wasn’t connected or involved is just ignoring the facts. If you really believe GW BUSH is such a bad president - then how would you explain that the planning / pilot training / operational brainstorming for 9/11 absolutely started and happened right under our noses during the Clinton presidency?
REPORTS WENT INTO THE FBI THAT ARABS WERE SUSPICIOUSLY TAKING FLYING LESSONS DURING THE GW BUSH ADMINISTRATION
Bush In Office - 20 Jan 2001…. Attacks 11 Sep 2001… you think this attack was carried out from beginning to end in under 8 months? by all estimates - even as documented in post-9/11 studies - this operation had been planned for several YEARS.
NO, BUT MEMBERS OF PNAC WHICH HOPED FOR A 9/11 TYPE EVENT WERE IN A POSTION TO TAMPER WITH OUR DEFENSE FOR 8 MONTHS PRIOR TO 9/11.
4. GW Bush put his finger on arguably the worst possible reaction to 9/11.
This is your opinion …. but it goes against what your nation’s leadership decided based on the facts at the time. Unless you’re in a similar position - which i am not and i presume you’re not as well - then I find it rather presumptuous that you believe you have enough facts to make an educated decision.
OBAMA SAW FACTS THAT TOLD HIM THAT THE INVASION WAS A BAD IDEA.
5. Obama was able to see the forest despite the trees. Too many people let the trees confuse them.
Obama did not have any optic with which to view the trees / forest accurately. A state senator’s scope of responsibility does not allow his access to the information needed to make an educated decision. Obama had the same access to information the mayor of Springfield, Illinois. To claim this position allowed him access to the facts needed to make an educated decision seems rather naive.
OBAMA HAD AN UNDERSTANDING OF INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS AND MILITARY POWER AND COMMON SENSE.
THE ARCHITECTS OF THE IRAQ INVASION (CHENEY, WOLFOWITZ, FEITH, LIBBY, BOLTON, PERLE) WERE ALL CHICEN HAWK DRAFT-DODGERS WITH NO MILITARY TRAINING OR EXPERIENCE.
gasdocpol,
You certainly have your dander up over all this!
First, you didn’t address Adam’s main points at all, you simply diverted the conversation…
Second, Arabs taking flying lessons is a bit vague to take much specific action on, much less to predict something like 9/11. And by the way, isn’t that racial profiling? You wouldn’t have liked it if Bush, etc. HAD used that as a reason for investigating someone, now would you?
And to say that Bush (or anyone for that matter) WANTS more G.I.s to die needlessly is both foolish and unacceptable (on my blog anyway). If you continue in that sort of vein… well, you know, I AM the owner of this blog…
Well, we’ve boiled it down to you think Obama has a keen understanding of interntional affairs and military power - and you cite the lack of experience and training by those behind the war (with some nice descriptive adjectives i must admit!!) - yet obama has no military experience himself. if he does, i welcome your sourcing - his official biography claims he never served - and as a disabled veteran myself of over 10 years - I place significant importance in the responsibilities of a president to serve as CINC, especially as it pertains to how that president may mangage our military men and women.
but alas, a candidate is just that - someone who represents similiar views to your own - and someone who you believe, for whatever reason, will do the right thing. Iraq is an amazingly complex an issue - especially when arguments are founded in emotion and not facts. we can “believe” anything we want - but without facts to support our beliefs - we ultimately lack credibility.
as is with most conversations i have with those who claim to understand what’s going on in the middle east - it ends in frustration. I am frustrated people don’t research things for themselves, are generally mis-informed, and generally just go along with what the TV feeds us. I’m frustrated by the millions of people who choose to live in this country but then hop on a bandwagon of the next best craze badmouthing the government / country that makes this free speech possible. The average american wants to have their cake and eat it too - but when asked “why not move to another country?” - ultimately they say they PREFER to live here … amazing
because if someone really WAS so upset with the way we do things - they should go live in canada under a health care system that takes 6 months to get an appointment with a much higher tax rate ….
of the people i’ve chatted with about this issue - and there have been many - the people that have been to iraq say generally one of two things …. “we are needed there and its important what we are doing - want to go back” - or “the problems involved in that country are so overwhelming - i don’t know how we will ever succeed…. send me home!! i don’t want to risk my life for a something i don’t see the light at the end of the tunnel.”
whether its positive or negative - NEVER - and i say NEVER - have i heard someone that has served in iraq - met the people - looked an iraqi child in the eyes and realized that he now has a future say “we shouldn’t have come to iraq in the first place …” because ultimately, we are doing this to make future generations better - giving children of both genders the right to an education and the ability to pursue their dreams.
the process which we are embarking upon in trying to rebuild a country is a separate issue than the initial decision to try and help. I absolutely agree that the plan following the military offensive was substandard - and that we are expecting too much from our young military leaders in asking them to rebuild a government. but the decision to help a nation in need - to free a country from the opressive reign of an evil dictator (to use an adjective you originated) was solid. most arguments by most people use facts from post 19 mar 2003 to try and support a pre-19 mar 2003 decision.
with anything in life - mistakes were made, things could have done better, and that’s why we study history to avoid repeating them. As anyone who has been in a “simple” relationship can tell you - even if you mess up, identify your mistake, and try and fix it - we are human and will absolutely sin again. Thank God for forgiveness! This applies to life at all levels. considering the nature of humanity - and the fact we are living in an imperfect world - we can scrutinize the past all we want based on the cozy chair we are relaxing in now … but given the information at the time - which even Senator Clinton had and voted in favor of the war (as did the vast majority of our leaders from BOTH political parties) - they made the best decision they could. this decision was not a unilateral one by the president - and its foolish to claim as such. If you expect perfection from anyone - they will always disappoint you. Accordingly, any argument which claims perfection is the goal - is idealistic.
No matter how much credibility you would like to put in Obama’s resistance of the war in 2002, he did not vote - he was not a national leader - and it means as much as you or i saying we are qualified to be president if we also disagreed with the war. I personally don’t believe ANYONE is qualified to be president with only three years in the senate. but that’s not the argument at hand
in those three years of FEDERAL level position - what bills / legislation has Sen Obama proposed, authored and / or gotten passed? that simple question has become the root issue surrounding Obama’s qualifications.
For a position as important as the Presidency, I personally feel it is too big a gamble to go with someone without a proven track record of executive management (along the lines of Pastor Carey’s point re: governor’s of state) - or someone without extensive experience in national level politics.
Now imagine us having this discussion in Iraq under saddam - we both would be executed by public hanging for voicing dissent with the government!! Of course there wouldn’t be a candidate to debate about either - because any contender to the presidency would be killed as well …. as for me - i’m extremely happy to live in this country - and i’m extremely happy that our government, as flawed as it may be on any given day - truly does try to do the right thing for us and for the world.
[...] Posted on May 8, 2008 by Carey I’ve already posted on Obama’s positions here, here, and here, so I won’t go into that full-scale - except taht I honestly have to say that my [...]