Obama Vs. McCain

Abookamongstthemany

Its Evolution Baby wrote:

Also Obama is not for Preemptive strikes against Iran. That is just not true. He wants to meet with the leaders with no Preconditions. I don't know how you get hes for Preemptive strikes with Iran from that.

McCain will refuse to even talk to Iran.

Because he said he will not rule it out. He said military strikes are still on the table if Iran does not comply with our demands.

Abookamongstthemany

Its Evolution Baby wrote:

Abooks, Obama is committed to pulling troops out within 16 months it says so right in the article I posted. I have never found one spot where he said they would be there past 2013. That is McCain's realistic date for withdrawal not Obama's.

However I do believe that he said there would be a smattering of non combat troops in the region for years to come. I just can't find the quote anywhere. However that is just like Vietnam, Korea, Bosnia etc, where our presence on some Military bases helped keep stability in the region. He was just being honest from what I recall. He could have told a lie and said they will all be gone but I respect his honesty on that part of the issue.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=6HvetQyzpQE

Abookamongstthemany

Its Evolution Baby wrote:

Also Obama is not for Preemptive strikes against Iran. That is just not true. He wants to meet with the leaders with no Preconditions. I don't know how you get hes for Preemptive strikes with Iran from that.

McCain will refuse to even talk to Iran.

http://forums.pearljam.com/showpost.php?p=5508672&postcount=28

Its Evolution Baby

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Because he said he will not rule it out. He said military strikes are still on the table if Iran does not comply with our demands.

Thats the difference... Bush and McCain are itching for war with Iran, in my opinion of course. Obama said this:
While Obama wouldn't rule out force, he said the United States should engage in "aggressive diplomacy combined with tough sanctions" to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear threat.

So he won't rule out force. Just like how I wouldn't rule out force if I was attacked or threatened. It doesn't mean I'm looking to go smack some people around.

Abookamongstthemany

Its Evolution Baby wrote:

Thats the difference... Bush and McCain are itching for war with Iran, in my opinion of course. Obama said this:
While Obama wouldn't rule out force, he said the United States should engage in "aggressive diplomacy combined with tough sanctions" to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear threat.

So he won't rule out force. Just like how I wouldn't rule out force if I was attacked or threatened. It doesn't mean I'm looking to go smack some people around.

If he decided to attack either of these countries he mentions in the quote below, it would be pre-emptive. That's the same position as McCain and Bush....they always say how they don't want to do such and such but if they are forced to then they have no choice....No one can force you to strike another country that has not attacked you. Obama's not talking about 'only if they attack us first will I use force'. Tell me how this stance is any different than McCain's.


'He added, "[L]aunching some missile strikes into Iran is not the optimal position for us to be in" given the ongoing war in Iraq. "On the other hand, having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse." Obama went on to argue that military strikes on Pakistan should not be ruled out if "violent Islamic extremists" were to "take over."

http://www.antiwar.com/frank/?articleid=4521


Also Bush ran his campaign in 2000 partly on 'no nation building' to try to separate himself from Clinton and Gore......remember how that worked out?

slightofjeff

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Because he said he will not rule it out. He said military strikes are still on the table.

Good for Obama.

Now, if only he would take back the "no preconditions" thing ...

Abookamongstthemany

slightofjeff wrote:

Good for Obama.

Now, if only he would take back the "no preconditions" thing ...

See, it's posters like you(republican supporters, favored the war in 03) who I would expect to agree with his statements....

MattyJoe

I really want to know, who here supports McCain? Don't be afraid to speak up.

I support him only because Obama is worse.

Rhinocerous Surprise

my2hands wrote:

so what? she is more then qualified for the position.. he may disagree with her ideals and policy ideas but she is more then qualified for the position

Are you serious? Assuming he did vote her in despite disagreeing with her ideals and policy ideas (which we can't be certain of in the first place)... That doesn't exactly inspire much confidence in his Change agenda, does it? "Eh, she's qualified - so what if it's more of the same?"

Abookamongstthemany

MattyJoe wrote:

I really want to know, who here supports McCain? Don't be afraid to speak up.

I support him only because Obama is worse.

I've been wondering about this question, too!

Because apparently, I need to be debating these sneaky and ever so invisible people who don't even feel strongly enough about the guy to say so publicly. Go figure.

Abookamongstthemany

Rhinocerous Surprise wrote:

Are you serious? Assuming he did vote her in despite disagreeing with her ideals and policy ideas (which we can't be certain of in the first place)... That doesn't exactly inspire much confidence in his Change agenda, does it? "Eh, she's qualified - so what if it's more of the same?"

I know, it seems so screamingly obvious I didn't even feel the need to bother addressing it.

Rhinocerous Surprise

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

I know, it seems so screamingly obvious I didn't even feel the need to bother addressing it.

I felt bad saying it. I usually need you to say things first, so that I can just agree with you.

Its Evolution Baby

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

See, it's posters like you(republican supporters, favored the war in 03) who I would expect to agree with his statements....

Because meeting with the leaders of Iran with no preconditions is what Obama wants to do and is getting reamed by McCain and Bush and SlightofJeff for wanting to do so.

Meeting without preconditions is a huge deal as it shows that we will pursue diplomacy first without Iran meeting any requirements. McCain and Bush won't acknowledge Ahmadinejad unless he agrees to everything they are asking first. How is that diplomacy in any way???

To me Obama is just being honest which I know we aren't used to in politics. I would love to hear Nader explain how he would have avoided War when the South seceded, when Pearl Harbor was attacked and Jews were being slaughtered, after 3000 Americans died on 9/11. At all of those points a certain amount of force was necessary like it or not. Iraq is what was never necessary and is why Bush is the worst President of all time.

My guess is that Nader would act aggressively if we were attacked or threatened. If not then he's as much of a failure as Bush because the number one job as president is to protect the people and the country. If we were attacked with no response then what would prevent us from being attacked again???

Obama has made it his intention in every single speech he has given that he wants to reverse the bad name Bush has given this country. How does that sound like a man who is not pursuing diplomacy?

slightofjeff

Rhinocerous Surprise wrote:

Are you serious? Assuming he did vote her in despite disagreeing with her ideals and policy ideas (which we can't be certain of in the first place)... That doesn't exactly inspire much confidence in his Change agenda, does it? "Eh, she's qualified - so what if it's more of the same?"

Because that's the fucking point of a Senate confirmation hearing.

You are NOT supposed to vote with whether or not you like the nominee, or agree with his or her beliefs. It is NOT supposed to be partisan.

You are ONLY supposed to vote whether or not she is qualified. That's it.

It isn't an election. It's a vetting process. Didn't you pay attention in civics class?

slightofjeff

Its Evolution Baby wrote:

Meeting without preconditions is a huge deal as it shows that we will pursue diplomacy first without Iran meeting any requirements.

But that's the point. Iran needs to meet some requirements. Foremost would be to stop threatening to wipe its neighbors off the map. A cease and desist on supplying arms (and probably fighters) to kill U.S. soldiers in Iraq would probably be another.

Maybe you don't understand the symbolism of one head of state meeting with another.

Usually, when two "enemy" heads of state meet, they've got some sort of pact worked out in advance. These are the "preconditions" everyone has been talking about. If Ahmadinejad isn't willing to hammer those out beforehand, why on Earth would he do them at this great Obama summit?

It would be a meeting for no reason, other than to allow Ahmadinejad to grandstand on the national stage at America's expense. And the fact that Obama doesn't understand how international diplomacy works, and the significance of a U.S. president meeting with the head of another state, is a little frightening.

A sitting U.S. president meeting with Ahmadinejad would lend the perception of legitimacy to his regime. Doing so without preconditions would give him the ability, through his own state-run media, to spin the meeting however he wants.

Abookamongstthemany

slightofjeff wrote:

Because that's the fucking point of a Senate confirmation hearing.

You are NOT supposed to vote with whether or not you like the nominee, or agree with his or her beliefs. It is NOT supposed to be partisan.

You are ONLY supposed to vote whether or not she is qualified. That's it.

It isn't an election. It's a vetting process. Didn't you pay attention in civics class?

I think that if you disagree with the things she has done throughout her time in the Bush admin then that should disqualify her for the position.

Its Evolution Baby

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

I know, it seems so screamingly obvious I didn't even feel the need to bother addressing it.

Actually My2Hands is right. Its not up to Congress to appoint the Secretary of State it's part of being President. She had both the experience and the knowledge to serve as that post whether we agree with her on the issues or not.

If Nader was to become president he could appoint whomever he wants to that post and as long as they are qualified they will be accepted whether the Republicans in congress agreed with the Person's policies or not.

I think the fact that Codi Rice received only 13 no votes which was the most since 1825 shows how little congress fights on appointments.

slightofjeff

MattyJoe wrote:

I really want to know, who here supports McCain? Don't be afraid to speak up.

I support him only because Obama is worse.

I would probably count myself in the same boat.

I actually like many of his foreign policy points, but much of his domestic agenda makes me want to hold my nose. Then there's the simple fact that I don't think anyone really knows what McCain we're going to get. He's been all over the map, in order to prove he's a maverick, that it's hard to get a pinpoint on where he actually stands on many issues.

This will probably be one of those "better than the alternative" votes.

slightofjeff

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

I think that if you disagree with the things she has done throughout her time in the Bush admin then that should disqualify her for the position.

It doesn't matter what you think. Those aren't in the powers prescribed to Congress in the constitution. If you'd like to get to work on a Constitutional amendment, be my guest.

It's the president's job to appoint his cabinet, not Congress's. Blame the Founding Fathers.

Abookamongstthemany

Its Evolution Baby wrote:

Because meeting with the leaders of Iran with no preconditions is what Obama wants to do and is getting reamed by McCain and Bush and SlightofJeff for wanting to do so.

Meeting without preconditions is a huge deal as it shows that we will pursue diplomacy first without Iran meeting any requirements. McCain and Bush won't acknowledge Ahmadinejad unless he agrees to everything they are asking first. How is that diplomacy in any way???

To me Obama is just being honest which I know we aren't used to in politics. I would love to hear Nader explain how he would have avoided War when the South seceded, when Pearl Harbor was attacked and Jews were being slaughtered, after 3000 Americans died on 9/11. At all of those points a certain amount of force was necessary like it or not. Iraq is what was never necessary and is why Bush is the worst President of all time.

My guess is that Nader would act aggressively if we were attacked or threatened. If not then he's as much of a failure as Bush because the number one job as president is to protect the people and the country. If we were attacked with no response then what would prevent us from being attacked again???

Obama has made it his intention in every single speech he has given that he wants to reverse the bad name Bush has given this country. How does that sound like a man who is not pursuing diplomacy?

Do you think Iran is going to ever attack us? Seriously?

And so what Obama says he wants to reverse the bad name Bush has given this country? His foreign policy plans say otherwise. And as I already stated, Bush ran on things like 'no nation building' during his campaign, too....so these pretty campaign promises don't mean too much...especially when your voting record can speak for you.