Obama and Clinton

[Marc Martyn]

She takes Yogi Berra's phrase "It ain't over, til it's over" to a new level!

[joshswrench]

And HRC is finally done. D U N D DONE! I'm very pro military, being a member and all, but I have a lot of problems with McCain. Bothers the crap outta me that all he wants to do is go fight other countries. Now don't get me wrong, I enjoy serving out country and love it to death, but in the past I've been gone more than I've been home. I'd like to see a candidate that is willing to finish off what we've started in other countries before we decide to wage war on another. For my money right now, it's on Obama. But from a soliders stand point, politicians are politicians, and we don't choose where we go, we are told. I'd just like someone who has the brain power to know where we need to be.

[Gisteppo]

Josh, powerful words and well said!

E

[Marc Martyn]

I'd just like someone who has the brain power to know where we need to be.

I believe that there is one now. Perhaps next year we can re-center our original mission and go get Bin Laden.

[cavdad45]

Do you think Hillary has something up her sleeve, especially when she slipped up and mentioned '68? Is that her true strategy? Let's not forget the extremely suspicious death of Vince Foster how the Clinton operatives secured all the documents before the "park police" found his "suicide. Maybe that's why she hasn't quit. She knows something.

Visited 57 states?

AS per Marc's request, I have editted the comments not directly accusing Mrs. Clinton of Vince Foster's death.

[kevinb]

Its been a few years...I had forgotten about Vince Foster.,interesting:-k

[Jesper]

but I have a lot of problems with McCain. Bothers the crap outta me that all he wants to do is go fight other countries

Just curious... but what other countries does he want to fight?

[Gisteppo]

Hey Cav, I know the right loves to pick on that comment, but if you go back through the entire race, you will find that because of places like Guam, Puerto Rico, two votes in Texas (one caucus, one election), he actually, at that point, had been through 57 separate races. He slipped on the word states, but he was correct in the number of times he was voted upon.

E

[joshswrench]

Oh how about Iran for starters, North Korea, Syria...

[Anonymous]

I read through this thread (something I try to avoid because I have no interest in getting worked up). I am pleased to see how tame and even-handed it is. I think the members should be complemented on keeping it peaceful. Thanks to all of you - your civil attitudes are what make this web site a cut above everything else out there!

[Jesper]

Oh how about Iran for starters, North Korea, Syria...

Really? I don't recall seeing him advocating starting a war with any of them, but maybe I missed it. Unless of course you mean that he prefers a more confrontational line with those countries as opposed to Obama. I guess my point of view then would be that Obama wants to pursue a line of appeasement with same countries now that we're exaggerating anyway.

[Gisteppo]

Jesper, please take a few minutes and find a source that shows Obama will "appease" them.

Look at much of what we did with the soviet union. We never confronted them, we spent the bulk of our time in constant talks, debates, and summits. The resultant arms race was the worst of those talks, and nary a shot was fired in malice. We never appeased them, but what we did do is find mutual ground from which we could both stand, and from there found the differences we could live with. They did things their way (we dont receive russian oil, for example), and we did them our way here, preventing what would have been a catastrophic war.

Appeasement is a talking point. Seek out the root of the issue. If you disagree with his stance on abortion, thats a viable argument because that is against your beliefs. To argue that he will be an appeaser is just an untrue statement.

E

[Jesper]

Gisteppo,

This is what I wrote:

I guess my point of view then would be that Obama wants to pursue a line of appeasement with same countries now that we're exaggerating anyway.

Please notice the last two words. I guess it's all a matter of wording. Saying that McCain want's to fight the countries mentioned when there's no basis for that is ok, but calling Obama softer line appeasing is untrue? Maybe Josh meant that he thinks McCain is going to throw harsh words at those countries, but I doubt it.

As far as the Soviet Union is concerned. There were proxy wars fought all over the place, but what drove the USSR into the ground was a flawed system. One could argue that what they spent on military junk prevented them from using it to upgrade factories, agriculture etc.

[Gisteppo]

Ahh, I read it as the context of exaggerated claims of inciting a war, not the appeasement. Thanks for the clarification.

On USSR, I wasnt saying we defeated them, just that we never came to a war thanks to much deliberation and frequent talks.

E

[Jesper]

That, and probably also the knowledge that both countries would be devastated by a nuclear war.

[joshswrench]

Jesper I'm not going to argue the fact that he hasn't come right out and said it. But McCain falls in line with the current presidents views of war, which is war is a good thing. I'm not saying that war is unavoidable, because I know that's not true. And I'm not saying that war, in some cases, isn't necessary. I'd just like a president who's willing to sit down and talk about things diplomatically before we jump right into something else. McCain is a good republican leader. He's seen a lot of the front lines that we soliders have, so I can see why he would want to stay the course there. But being a Bush guy, I feel that he will lead us to war with one of those three countries, which I'm not thrilled about and I know a lot of my fellow servicemen aren't either.

[Jesper]

I see where you're coming from, but I don't think McCain believes war is a good thing, rather a necessity sometimes. Is he more willing to Obama to rattle the saber? Yeah, but when it comes to dealing with countries like Iran and Syria I think that's necessary. You can see how far the current diplomatic negotiations with Iran has brought zero results as far as their nuclear ambitions go. Besides, if a leader of a foreign country says that one of your allies should be wiped off the face of the earth, then I don't think there's much to talk about, but that's just my opinion.