Five reasons to vote for/against Obama (1 Viewer)

[Shawn]

That's a fair take. I don't have quite the same impression. For example, he's already suggested that were he to be elected, he'd like to bring in a politically diverse team into his cabinet.

It's funny that Clinton is so disliked among the GOP, precisely because they thought he co-opted their policy. Rather than seeing it is compromise, they saw it as being sneaky. I've never understood that at all.

I'm pretty much in a holding pattern, and don't put much into anything that's happening at this point. After the nominating happens, I'll start paying attention again. it just seems that right now, there's not much to see except the Democratic candidates trying to stay on their feet, while they and they press throw out landmines, hoping for a mis-step. It's not very illuminating.

 

[MLU]

It's an unsettled situation with no clear end in sight. People say we have an obligation to see it through. For how long? Another year? Another 5 years? 20 years? And at what cost to the U.S. taxpayers?

A president's first obligation has to be to the people of his country. The fact that 5 years later, with no discernible timeline, there's still debate about what will happen if we leave sooner rather than later while the price tag continues to bloat, should, I'd hope, have us rethinking what is the best course in Iraq, the Middle East, and our relationships with other nations in general.

Give the Iraqi government an ultimatum, a start date for them to assume full control of all affairs in their country and then let them decide the fate of their nation.

So should we be pulling out of ALL overseas bases or just the ones where we feel that bloodshed is not worth it? Should we shut everything down in Germany? South Korea?

In the long run, our presence in other countries has served the US Taxpayers well. I expect that Iraq with it's wealth of natural resources will be no different.

 

[MLU]

It's an unsettled situation with no clear end in sight. People say we have an obligation to see it through. For how long? Another year? Another 5 years? 20 years? And at what cost to the U.S. taxpayers?

A president's first obligation has to be to the people of his country. The fact that 5 years later, with no discernible timeline, there's still debate about what will happen if we leave sooner rather than later while the price tag continues to bloat, should, I'd hope, have us rethinking what is the best course in Iraq, the Middle East, and our relationships with other nations in general.

Give the Iraqi government an ultimatum, a start date for them to assume full control of all affairs in their country and then let them decide the fate of their nation.

So should we be pulling out of ALL overseas bases or just the ones where we feel that bloodshed is not worth it? Should we shut everything down in Germany? South Korea?

In the long run, our presence in other countries has served the US Taxpayers well. I expect that Iraq with it's wealth of natural resources will be no different.

Also, on the capital gains issue: IIRC, historically tax revenue has increased whenever the capital gains tax is cut. I'm sure it's not that simple, but that little nugget of information followed by Obama's quote saying that he felt it should be increased "because it's fair" to do so made me laugh. I'm pretty ignorant on the subject, but "because I said so" only makes me want to do the opposite. That was a pretty stupid response.

Even Hillary agreed that the CG Tax should not be raised any higher than the 15% - 20% where it was at during the Clinton Administration.

 

[DavidM]

So should we be pulling out of ALL overseas bases or just the ones where we feel that bloodshed is not worth it? Should we shut everything down in Germany? South Korea?

Are we merely operating a base in Iraq or still, years later, fighting a war? Do we/will we gain a significant strategic advantage by being positioned in Iraq that we didn't already have in the Middle East, and will the U.S. taxpayers benefit in a way that will ever justify the ever growing price tag? If this is the cost we're to assume so that we can gain another military foothold somewhere in the world (since the comparison has been made) then let me go on record now and say that I hope my country never goes on another military base building mission again.

Look, I know we're almost certainly committed longterm, in some way, to Iraq. It is what it is, now. I do hope that this experience does something to have some positive future effect on how we operate in the global theater. It's going to have to be one hell of an eventual big payoff to ever justify the strained foreign relations, the bloodshed, and the money spent.

 

[MLU]

We are still fighting a war years later because of poor decisions made in how to handle the entire ordeal. They do not possess the wisdom of previous administrations who successfully fought insurgencies in Japan and Germany. Up until now, our answers to the questions in Iraq have been half-hearted (like Vietnam) and not with purpose (like WWII).

Public perception is held in too high regard. What does John Q. Public know about what will and won't work in Iraq? Had the public been given such unfettered media access to WWII what would we have done in response to public outrage regarding the firebombing of Japanese cities? Eisenhower recommended (but did not carry out that I know of) the execution of scores of Germans. Such methods are brutal and inhumane, but effective mostly in ridding the Allies of troublesome leaders, but also in breaking the spirits of those who might choose to willing offer their lives in response to Allied Occupation.

This will never happen, which is why more time musty be invested before we see true recovery in Iraq. We don't have the benefit of decisive and brutal methods because we are better than that now and because the world wouldn't let us get away with it. Even then, the lives lost in Iraq will be minimal to the lives lost in any other successful US war campaign.

I am hopeful that McCain won't continue on the same path as the Bush Administration. In the past he has let it be known his disdain for useless military missions that serve only political purposes, such as the repeated bombing of worthless sites in Vietnam while passing over more strategically worthy targets.

It's either this or we allow the country to dive into a civil war that will likely kill many more and last much, much longer...

As for the payoff, countries are fickle. They know that American policy changes every four years. I'm sure inflation alone will cover the money spent, if it's even an accurate number at all.

 

[cruize]

We are still fighting a war years later because of poor decisions made in how to handle the entire ordeal. They do not possess the wisdom of previous administrations who successfully fought insurgencies in Japan and Germany. Up until now, our answers to the questions in Iraq have been half-hearted (like Vietnam) and not with purpose (like WWII).

Public perception is held in too high regard. What does John Q. Public know about what will and won't work in Iraq? Had the public been given such unfettered media access to WWII what would we have done in response to public outrage regarding the firebombing of Japanese cities? Eisenhower recommended (but did not carry out that I know of) the execution of scores of Germans. Such methods are brutal and inhumane, but effective mostly in ridding the Allies of troublesome leaders, but also in breaking the spirits of those who might choose to willing offer their lives in response to Allied Occupation.

This will never happen, which is why more time musty be invested before we see true recovery in Iraq. We don't have the benefit of decisive and brutal methods because we are better than that now and because the world wouldn't let us get away with it. Even then, the lives lost in Iraq will be minimal to the lives lost in any other successful US war campaign.

I am hopeful that McCain won't continue on the same path as the Bush Administration. In the past he has let it be known his disdain for useless military missions that serve only political purposes, such as the repeated bombing of worthless sites in Vietnam while passing over more strategically worthy targets.

It's either this or we allow the country to dive into a civil war that will likely kill many more and last much, much longer...

As for the payoff, countries are fickle. They know that American policy changes every four years. I'm sure inflation alone will cover the money spent, if it's even an accurate number at all.

When you're sole purpose above all right and wrong is getting re-elected and staying in power, public perception is the only thing that matters.

McCain kissed the current President squarely on the butt so he would have the chance to get the nomination this time around. He will continue with the current Republican direction is he gets elected.

 

[jcollins9]

... 3) Diplomacy: He seems the most willing to break from our current foreign policy which has left us isolated and unpopular...

I just have a question about this. If we are so isolated and unpopular, why have France, Italy, Australia, and Germany (among others), in the last few years, elected leaders who are seen as "pro-American", or seem to favor our foreign policy.