For The Fans of Barack Obamma

[walksalone]

 

I'm not defending him, in anyway shape or form. Outside of McCain (who's become a former shell of himself), any of the other two scare the crap out of me.

 

There should be an amendment to the portion of the constitution, that lays out the prerequisites for being president, that the individual should have served in the U.S. Military, excluding the reserves.

 

An excellent way to drift into a military dictatorship - at least, that's been the formula in all other countries in which it's occurred. There's a reason that there is a civilian oversight - fear of the military takeover.

 

 

Now, where at anypoint, would that lead to a military dictatorship? Because I want somebody, who knows what it's like to serve their country, deciding what's best for our servicemen and women?

 

I don't want what our military had to put up during the Clinton administration.

[AR Husker Fan]

 

If there is one thing that would unite Iraq, it would be an attack by Iran. Regardless, Iran is already considered a terroist state. We don't have any appreciable interest in Iraq's oil supply - check out the countries from which we import oil. So, what is lost even if what you believe were to happen came to pass?

 

But even then, Iraq wouldn't be able to stop them.

 

No we don't have any interest in their oil supply, but whoever is going to be president, is worried about the U.S.'s image, and they would be the first to volunteer our "services" to make amends?

 

It's Clinton all over again. US troops being deployed to anywhere and everywhere so we can kiss the U.N's behind, to make us look better...

As opposed to deploying U.S. troops into an arena in which more than 4000 have to give their lives? All premised on information that the administration knew was false? Against a country that did not harbor terrorists, had no WMDs (which was known to Bush), posed no threat to us?

 

I'll gladly take Clinton's way of doing things - particularly when you consider that Bosnia (in which Clinton followed his general's recommendations to the letter) resulted in an actual "mission accomplished" with absolutely no loss of American lives...

[AR Husker Fan]

[

 

I'm not defending him, in anyway shape or form. Outside of McCain (who's become a former shell of himself), any of the other two scare the crap out of me.

 

There should be an amendment to the portion of the constitution, that lays out the prerequisites for being president, that the individual should have served in the U.S. Military, excluding the reserves.

 

An excellent way to drift into a military dictatorship - at least, that's been the formula in all other countries in which it's occurred. There's a reason that there is a civilian oversight - fear of the military takeover.

 

 

Now, where at anypoint, would that lead to a military dictatorship? Because I want somebody, who knows what it's like to serve their country, deciding what's best for our servicemen and women?

 

I don't want what our military had to put up during the Clinton administration.

Look into the history of military coups - they generally start by a concentration of military power in the Executive branch of any government. By excluding those that don't have military experience, you narrow the pool of candidates severely, and increase the chances of someone being elected whose only desire is to impose a martial state.

[walksalone]

As opposed to deploying U.S. troops into an arena in which more than 4000 have to give their lives? All premised on information that the administration knew was false? Against a country that did not harbor terrorists, had no WMDs (which was known to Bush), posed no threat to us?

 

I'll gladly take Clinton's way of doing things - particularly when you consider that Bosnia (in which Clinton followed his general's recommendations to the letter) resulted in an actual "mission accomplished" with absolutely no loss of American lives...

 

Many more will have to give they're lives, if things are not done correctly.

 

So you remember Mogadishu, Khobar Towers, the USS Cole? Clinton didn't do anything, not a freaking thing. American soldiers died, without ANY, and i do mean ANY retaliation.

 

And as for Bosnia, you are horribly mistaken sir about the "loss of lives". I was a casualty clerk, from 95 through 97, and I know otherwise.

[strigori]

Iran is far, far closer to becoming a western style democracy than anywhere else in the middle east. Granted the current leader there is a nut job, but the general population is far more pro-west than anywhere else. This would be a very good reason for Iran's pres (I am not even going to try to spell his name) to antagonize Bush into doing something stupid that would turn the general population against the west.

 

Compared to Bush, Clinton was a military genius. The military is at breaking point right now. The national guard cant even respond to natural disasters because all the equipment is in Iraq.

[walksalone]

Look into the history of military coups - they generally start by a concentration of military power in the Executive branch of any government. By excluding those that don't have military experience, you narrow the pool of candidates severely, and increase the chances of someone being elected whose only desire is to impose a martial state.

 

So, by adding that amendment, we're 100% guarantee'd of a military coup? Because I want somebody that understands the military, and will do good by those who serve, it's a bad idea?

 

So, explain to me, why wasn't there a coup under Eisenhower, or JFK? Both of them served proudly in the military.

[Blackshirtsguru]

This still makes me laugh.

 

 

 

[walksalone]

This still makes me laugh.

 

 

 

 

 

things like that, make me sick...

[Blackshirtsguru]

This still makes me laugh.

 

 

 

 

things like that, make me sick...

 

 

 

It's funny because it's the truth! These two boobs couldn't win at a game of Risk! We all seen how good ole Dick is with a shotgun.......

[AR Husker Fan]

Look into the history of military coups - they generally start by a concentration of military power in the Executive branch of any government. By excluding those that don't have military experience, you narrow the pool of candidates severely, and increase the chances of someone being elected whose only desire is to impose a martial state.

 

So, by adding that amendment, we're 100% guarantee'd of a military coup? Because I want somebody that understands the military, and will do good by those who serve, it's a bad idea?

 

So, explain to me, why wasn't there a coup under Eisenhower, or JFK? Both of them served proudly in the military.

I believe you missed this part:

 

By excluding those that don't have military experience, you narrow the pool of candidates severely, and increase the chances of someone being elected whose only desire is to impose a martial state.

[walksalone]

By excluding those that don't have military experience, you narrow the pool of candidates severely, and increase the chances of someone being elected whose only desire is to impose a martial state.

 

Yes it does narrow the pool of candidates, so we'll get a quality candidate, not another Bush, Clinton, etc...

 

But you also missed the Eisenhower & JFK portion of the program...

[strigori]

It narrows the pool to men who will usually view the military solution as the only solution.

 

When you mention Mogadishu, Khobar Towers, the USS Cole and no retaliation, retaliation against whom?

 

Having served in the military does in no way make someone more suited to be President than someone who did not.

[walksalone]

It narrows the pool to men who will usually view the military solution as the only solution.

 

When you mention Mogadishu, Khobar Towers, the USS Cole and no retaliation, retaliation against whom?

 

Having served in the military does in no way make someone more suited to be President than someone who did not.

 

It does narrow the pool, but when a military decision is to be made, it stands to reason that more caution would be exercised.

 

Retaliation against those who committed said acts. We knew then who did those things, and we stood idly by.

[sarge87]

Yeah, Karl Rove is a real objective person to be citing for information about Obama. To address just one of his points, special interests: Obama has not taken one dollar from special interest PAC groups while McCain has taken millions. I guess you won't find Karl Rove telling you about that, however.

Sources???? None, like usual....

 

PAC and committees FEC Disclosures as of 1/31/08

 

McCain $582,743

Obama $7,940

 

With all the union PAC's lining up with Obama that pledge will go out the window, just like using public money for the general election he pledged to do, but now is backing out of. Big surprise.

[sarge87]

Some wont like what I am going to say here. I do not believe democracy will work in Iraq.

 

One of the unstated most important principles of democracy is that of the national identity. When the United States is ever attacked, the bickering about race, money, liberal, conservative, all vanish and everyone is an American first, then anything else second. In Iraq, people are first sunni shiite or kurd, then muslim, and then Iraqi third at best. There is no national identity, and no real desire for one.

 

 

 

I totally agree with you. Some Middle Eastern people would love to have it but it would considered "Americans throwing their beliefs onto us" therefore trumping any idea of Democracy.

Excuse me, but how much national identity do you have in this country, when people that are living here are displaying their home countries' flag, and can't speak the common language of this country?