Political Crossfire Forums

californian conservative · Joined: 08 Jul 2006 Posts: 6474 Location: Michigan

Ek0nomik wrote: Why? Do you think he digs up all the intelligence and maps himself? He has a military staff which lays everything out for him, which gives him the best options. The respect and caring for people who serve in the military doesn't have to stem from actual donation of time in such an institution.

So are you saying it doesn't really matter who we put into office just as long as he has good advisors? (for policy matters). And you don't think that military experience is necessary, but i do.

*Edited for clarity

Ek0nomik · Joined: 17 Jul 2005 Posts: 2065 Location: La Fleur

Eduffy80911 wrote: It's been proven many times over that all great players do not make great coaches, and some of the greatest coaches were never very good players.
I would say that knowledge of the game, is critical to success though.

He'll get knowledge of the game as time goes on. The advisor's will tell him his options, and he can ask what the consequences are of such options. C'mon, it's not like we can elect an individual and they get complete power over everything. As much as people would like to blame Bush for such things, and even I as a rather radical leftist on certain issues understand this.

californian conservative wrote: So are you saying it doesn't really matter who we put into office just as long as he has good advisors? (for policy matters). And you don't think that military experience is necessary, but i do.

*Edited for clarity

Military experience is a plus, but I don't think it is necessary, no. Read above.

californian conservative · Joined: 08 Jul 2006 Posts: 6474 Location: Michigan

Ek0nomik wrote: Eduffy80911 wrote: It's been proven many times over that all great players do not make great coaches, and some of the greatest coaches were never very good players.
I would say that knowledge of the game, is critical to success though.

He'll get knowledge of the game as time goes on. The advisor's will tell him his options, and he can ask what the consequences are of such options. C'mon, it's not like we can elect an individual and they get complete power over everything. As much as people would like to blame Bush for such things, and even I as a rather radical leftist on certain issues understand this.

californian conservative wrote: So are you saying it doesn't really matter who we put into office just as long as he has good advisors? (for policy matters). And you don't think that military experience is necessary, but i do.

*Edited for clarity

Military experience is a plus, but I don't think it is necessary, no. Read above.

However ek0, I will give you that lack of experience doesn't always lead to problems. My governer, Arnold Shwarzenegger, has done a fine job as governor and he had no political experience going in. Its just that I would prefer experience, especially in certain matters.

Ek0nomik · Joined: 17 Jul 2005 Posts: 2065 Location: La Fleur

californian conservative wrote: However ek0, I will give you that lack of experience doesn't always lead to problems. My governer, Arnold Shwarzenegger, has done a fine job as governor and he had no political experience going in. Its just that I would prefer experience, especially in certain matters.

To be honest, I feel as though that's just your natural instinct. Elect the coach, that has played the sport. Elect a politician, who has experience in politics. But we both know that neither of those things need to be true to put up great results. I have no problem voting for Barack Obama, even if he doesn't carry military experience. Obama has very clearly stated (in his 2004 DNC Keynote Address, actually) that military force is an option. He wouldn't be afraid to use it. Now, I'm not arguing on Obama's behalf, because he may not even agree with what I'm about to write. But why is avoiding the military such a bad thing? Not everyone believes in physical action to solve issues. There's a part of me that says, sign me up! If we need troops to defend the beautiful freedom we have in this country, don't even ask me if I want to or not, just get me training. Another part of me is a pacifist. I argue politics from two different angles most of the time. Military experience is not a requirement to run the United States, nor should it ever be. This is why we're paying many individuals who work in the White House. Dealing with that, is their job.

Eduffy80911 · Joined: 11 Dec 2005 Posts: 4541

californian conservative wrote: Ek0nomik wrote: Eduffy80911 wrote: It's been proven many times over that all great players do not make great coaches, and some of the greatest coaches were never very good players.
I would say that knowledge of the game, is critical to success though.

He'll get knowledge of the game as time goes on. The advisor's will tell him his options, and he can ask what the consequences are of such options. C'mon, it's not like we can elect an individual and they get complete power over everything. As much as people would like to blame Bush for such things, and even I as a rather radical leftist on certain issues understand this.

californian conservative wrote: So are you saying it doesn't really matter who we put into office just as long as he has good advisors? (for policy matters). And you don't think that military experience is necessary, but i do.

*Edited for clarity

Military experience is a plus, but I don't think it is necessary, no. Read above.

However ek0, I will give you that lack of experience doesn't always lead to problems. My governer, Arnold Shwarzenegger, has done a fine job as governor and he had no political experience going in. Its just that I would prefer experience, especially in certain matters.

Arnie had plenty of experience as a CEO, which is a whole different animal from a legislator.

What would you elect Obama to a posltion of chief executive and commander in chief based on? That he looks good in a suit?

Ek0nomik · Joined: 17 Jul 2005 Posts: 2065 Location: La Fleur

Eduffy80911 wrote: Arnie had plenty of experience as a CEO, which is a whole different animal from a legislator.

What would you elect Obama to a posltion of chief executive and commander in chief based on? That he looks good in a suit?

He has charisma. He has the ability to get work done in Washington. Why wouldn't you elect him?

The Newb · Joined: 06 Oct 2006 Posts: 2668

Ek0nomik wrote: Eduffy80911 wrote: Arnie had plenty of experience as a CEO, which is a whole different animal from a legislator.

What would you elect Obama to a posltion of chief executive and commander in chief based on? That he looks good in a suit?

He has charisma. He has the ability to get work done in Washington. Why wouldn't you elect him?

Quote: He has the ability to get work done in Washington

is this proven? until then i would question his running, he may have chaarisma, and brains, yet could he get backing from his collegues to handle "unorthodox" idea that he has?

jamesp · Joined: 30 Jan 2005 Posts: 3678

two things come to mind..and I am not certain as to wich is the right thing to do, and I am not convinced that the talking heads know either, including Obama.

1) If we are gonna PULL OUT, then know what the consequences are and be prepared for them

2) IF we are gonna stay, same thing, know what the consequences are and be prepared to deal with them.

All of this political posturing serves no purpose if they don't really prepare for the end result.

Isn't that what everyone is yelling at BUSH for ? He got into a situation that he really didn't plan for and couldn't figure out how to resolve ?

I gotta say this, I was looking at Obama with some interest, but two things he has now done appear to me that he is catering to the LEFT crowd.
1) Pull out of Iraq without understanding the end result
2) Came out against Wallmart

He's no different than the others

The DEMS won NOV 7th on the Lets get out of Iraq issue..but now they are in a quagmire to...they don't have a plan either..never did..

The Newb · Joined: 06 Oct 2006 Posts: 2668

jamesp wrote: two things come to mind..and I am not certain as to wich is the right thing to do, and I am not convinced that the talking heads know either, including Obama.

1) If we are gonna PULL OUT, then know what the consequences are and be prepared for them

2) IF we are gonna stay, same thing, know what the consequences are and be prepared to deal with them.

All of this political posturing serves no purpose if they don't really prepare for the end result.

Isn't that what everyone is yelling at BUSH for ? He got into a situation that he really didn't plan for and couldn't figure out how to resolve ?

I gotta say this, I was looking at Obama with some interest, but two things he has now done appear to me that he is catering to the LEFT crowd.
1) Pull out of Iraq without understanding the end result
2) Came out against Wallmart

He's no different than the others

The DEMS won NOV 7th on the Lets get out of Iraq issue..but now they are in a quagmire to...they don't have a plan either..never did.. :tu:

Obilisk18 · Joined: 14 Jan 2006 Posts: 538

Ek0nomik wrote: Eduffy80911 wrote: Arnie had plenty of experience as a CEO, which is a whole different animal from a legislator.

What would you elect Obama to a posltion of chief executive and commander in chief based on? That he looks good in a suit?

He has charisma. He has the ability to get work done in Washington. Why wouldn't you elect him?

I disagree with his having the ability to get work done in Washington. There's simply no evidence to suggest he's any more skilled in that regard then any other freshman senator; i.e., not very. I don't take Obama's recommendations on military affairs at all seriously. And I certainly wouldn't trust him to run this country in a time of such great peril. Gradual redeployment is one of the worst ideas I can imagine. It is not a winning strategy. Well, maybe winning isn't possible you say? Well, if winning isn't possible, and we've resigned ourselves to leaving Iraq a mess and a terrorist haven, then we should bring all the troops home now. There's simply no justification for leaving them there to fight and die in a war we have no intention of winning. John McCain has said exactly this. He believes we need to increase troop levels among other things. But if we're unwilling to do that, because of political reasons or whatever, then we should bring all the troops home now. That's actual political courage. Because presenting "gradual redeployment" as any sort of sound strategy is a fantasy. And I'm not going to vote for any lunatics that suggest it (unless, they all cave into absurdity and I'm given no choice).

Kilo Tango · Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 9030 Location: D.C.

A_happy_democrat wrote: Eduffy80911 wrote: I hadn't formed an opinion on Obama because I hadn't heard or read much about him except that he was popular.

This at least gives me a clue.

Pulling out of Iraq would send a strong message, that terrorism works.

It's the politically easy thing to call for and exactly the wrong policy.

Iraq is our problem. The morally correct thing to do is to help the Iraqi's create a stable, free country, even if it can't be done by the next election and even if your party loses votes over it.
Ok explain this to me, why stay for a lost cause. When people are being killed, every day, with out sight of an end. How many people must die before you change your mind. 100? 1,000? 10,000? 20,000? The elected govt of Iraq doesn't want us to leave. That would be the government that we put into power and entrusted the country to. They're our obligation.

And if we left and 10x the current # of people started being killed everyday what would that mean? Is it ok then? Is it ok to give up on an entire country and throw them to the wolves? I can't believe the dems in this country want to abandon the investment in life and liberty that we've made in Iraq...not to mention a fortune of U.S. money...all on the premise that we're causing the violence in Iraq and things we be better if we leave. If we leave we might as well book a roundtrip flight because we'll be back there in form or another before long. This isn't Vietnam - the stakes are much higher.

Mr. Sunshine · Joined: 07 Oct 2006 Posts: 1324

Eduffy80911 wrote: I hadn't formed an opinion on Obama because I hadn't heard or read much about him except that he was popular.

This at least gives me a clue.

Pulling out of Iraq would send a strong message, that terrorism works.

It's the politically easy thing to call for and exactly the wrong policy.

Iraq is our problem. The morally correct thing to do is to help the Iraqi's create a stable, free country, even if it can't be done by the next election and even if your party loses votes over it.

Not only that; he wants to redeploy to Kurdistan. That is the only place they don't have a security issue. Let's invite the terrorists there to. :lol:

Cut and Runners don't see that wherever we run to, they will follow more motivated. 8:)

coppersink63 · Joined: 04 Apr 2006 Posts: 4129 Location: Florida

Eduffy80911 wrote: I hadn't formed an opinion on Obama because I hadn't heard or read much about him except that he was popular.

This at least gives me a clue.

Pulling out of Iraq would send a strong message, that terrorism works.

It's the politically easy thing to call for and exactly the wrong policy.

Iraq is our problem. The morally correct thing to do is to help the Iraqi's create a stable, free country, even if it can't be done by the next election and even if your party loses votes over it.

"Pulling out of Iraq would send a strong message, that terrorism works."

This is incorrect. The only thing that sends a strong message that terrorism works is Bush's failure of capturing Osama Bin Laden.

Pulling out of iraq with a strong message of mission accomplished after we have handed iraq security forces and military forces over to the iraq government should send a strong message that we have successfuly removed a dictator and liberated a country.

The war in iraq had very little to do with the war on terror... The reason why we were there was to get rid of saddam and seup a democracy. We have done so... therefore mission accomplished.

Now if you want to fight terror perhaps we should re allocate our resources into finding Osama and finishing that job first.

Just my two cents.

Mr. Sunshine · Joined: 07 Oct 2006 Posts: 1324

If Usama is dead, he is more valuable to the goals of the War on Terror with people thinking he is still looming out there in a world of Cut and Runners. 8:)

coppersink63 · Joined: 04 Apr 2006 Posts: 4129 Location: Florida

Mr. Sunshine wrote: If Usama is dead, he is more valuable to the goals of the War on Terror with people thinking he is still looming out there in a world of Cut and Runners. 8:)

What say we find that information out then... problem with alot of conservatives, when it comes to Osama they like to deal with alot of If's and Probably's.

Why not find out the status of the only man to get away with killing over 2,800 americans insted of turning a god damn cold shoulder to the issue.

Mr. Sunshine · Joined: 07 Oct 2006 Posts: 1324

coppersink63 wrote: Mr. Sunshine wrote: If Usama is dead, he is more valuable to the goals of the War on Terror with people thinking he is still looming out there in a world of Cut and Runners. 8:)

What say we find that information out then... problem with alot of conservatives, when it comes to Osama they like to deal with alot of If's and Probably's.

Why not find out the status of the only man to get away with killing over 2,800 americans insted of turning a god damn cold shoulder to the issue.

Usama is one man cave hopping in Pakistan, or dead. His influence is marginalized. Maybe that is why he can't put out an audiotape or videotape, or al-Zawahiri is now running the show. He blew his wad on 09-11 and opened the door for us to fix the root of the problem. Killing Islamofascists is much more important in the big picture. Bin Laden has invited us to confront the real threat. Try to see the big picture. The enemy is what motivated the hijackers. It must be quelled, not every mosquito with its mind infected. Trees fall when cut from the bottom.

BTW, how many Islamofascists do you think died for the sacrifice of those 2800? The blood and honor of their sacrifice can only be adorned with victory. That is the only thing that can let them Rest In Peace. 8:)

coppersink63 · Joined: 04 Apr 2006 Posts: 4129 Location: Florida

Mr. Sunshine wrote: coppersink63 wrote: Mr. Sunshine wrote: If Usama is dead, he is more valuable to the goals of the War on Terror with people thinking he is still looming out there in a world of Cut and Runners. 8:)

What say we find that information out then... problem with alot of conservatives, when it comes to Osama they like to deal with alot of If's and Probably's.

Why not find out the status of the only man to get away with killing over 2,800 americans insted of turning a god damn cold shoulder to the issue.

Usama is one man cave hopping in Pakistan, or dead. His influence is marginalized. Maybe that is why he can't put out an audiotape or videotape, or al-Zawahiri is now running the show. He blew his wad on 09-11 and opened the door for us to fix the root of the problem. Killing Islamofascists is much more important in the big picture. Bin Laden has invited us to confront the real threat. Try to see the big picture. The enemy is what motivated the hijackers. It must be quelled, not every mosquito with its mind infected. Trees fall when cut from the bottom.

BTW, how many Islamofascists do you think died for the sacrifice of those 2800? The blood and honor of their sacrifice can only be adorned with victory. That is the only thing that can let them Rest In Peace. 8:)

"Usama is one man cave hopping in Pakistan, or dead. His influence is marginalized."

Why do you state this stuff as fact when you really have no idea one way or another. Its all just best guesses. If it was a democrat who was responsable for not catching osama I am sure you would be just as upset about it as I am.. however seeing how its Bush who is responsable your willing to just best guess the situation?

Come on sunshine were on the same side here. Whey dont you have the same rage, really ask yourself. If someone were to murder your friends and family but was run out of the country and you were told by the police "Hes just cave hopping to avoid us, were not looking for him any more. He probably wont kill anyone ever again" would you honestly be satisfied?

californian conservative · Joined: 08 Jul 2006 Posts: 6474 Location: Michigan

coppersink63 wrote: Pulling out of iraq with a strong message of mission accomplished after we have handed iraq security forces and military forces over to the iraq government should send a strong message that we have successfuly removed a dictator and liberated a country.

The war in iraq had very little to do with the war on terror... The reason why we were there was to get rid of saddam and seup a democracy. We have done so... therefore mission accomplished.

What's the use of setting up a democracy if its going to be destroyed the moment you leave?

coppersink63 · Joined: 04 Apr 2006 Posts: 4129 Location: Florida

californian conservative wrote: coppersink63 wrote: Pulling out of iraq with a strong message of mission accomplished after we have handed iraq security forces and military forces over to the iraq government should send a strong message that we have successfuly removed a dictator and liberated a country.

The war in iraq had very little to do with the war on terror... The reason why we were there was to get rid of saddam and seup a democracy. We have done so... therefore mission accomplished.

What's the use of setting up a democracy if its going to be destroyed the moment you leave?

That has been my question since the beginning. If they dont want it then why force it upon them. Its their country. We did the best we could over the years. Now its up to them! Make sure their homeland security is setup decently, hand it over to them and get the hell out imo.

Bonobo · Joined: 21 Aug 2006 Posts: 955 Location: London

Can we really trust someone whose name can be pronounced in a manner which sounds scarily similair to Osama?

I wonder if he's allowed to fly.