The Big Cat Posted November 7, 2008 Author Posted November 7, 2008 How so? I am saying to be a good commander in chief, you need to understand what it is like to be in the military. Keep in mind Obama will only be the second U.S. president to have not served at all in uniform. And yes, I know GWB barely served, but I am not saying he is a good CIC. Who was the other president to not serve? I would have thought there were more. It's a nice experience to have, don't get me wrong, but I think in the coming years such a mandate would impose a crippling reduction to the pool of qualified presidents. I think it's safe to say that military participation aint what it used to be.
Dan Posted November 7, 2008 Posted November 7, 2008 As you said, this is what he has believed and said all along, before he spoke with Patreus, before he went to Iraq for the first time after starting his run. Colin Powell is not on the ground, has not been in "the loop" for some time now. I think this isn't so much a "willy-nilly" decision as it is a political one. One that he may very well add to the pile of campaign promises he won't be able to deliver on. Don't forget, the situation on the ground changes all the time. I think it is reckless to make such a promise so far out from when he is actually making the calls. As you said, this is what he has said all along. I know this is disrespectful, but I believe he is more of a politician than he is a leader. The military doesn't need that type making troop movement decisions. He was catering to the surrender-now groups that are the subject of the original post in this thread. Now that he got their vote, he needs to start figuring out what is actually best of the security of our troops and our nation. Just as reckless as it is to state that we'll be there indefinitely. Both - all - candidates make promises and statements during a campaign that become invalid the moment they start getting intelligence briefings that they never saw before.
Kelly the Dog Posted November 7, 2008 Posted November 7, 2008 As you said, this is what he has believed and said all along, before he spoke with Patreus, before he went to Iraq for the first time after starting his run. Colin Powell is not on the ground, has not been in "the loop" for some time now. I think this isn't so much a "willy-nilly" decision as it is a political one. One that he may very well add to the pile of campaign promises he won't be able to deliver on. Don't forget, the situation on the ground changes all the time. I think it is reckless to make such a promise so far out from when he is actually making the calls. As you said, this is what he has said all along. I know this is disrespectful, but I believe he is more of a politician than he is a leader. The military doesn't need that type making troop movement decisions. He was catering to the surrender-now groups that are the subject of the original post in this thread. Now that he got their vote, he needs to start figuring out what is actually best of the security of our troops and our nation. How do you explain that a year ago the Iraqis themselves were saying close to the same things as Obama, and continue to?
scribo Posted November 7, 2008 Posted November 7, 2008 Just as reckless as it is to state that we'll be there indefinitely. Both - all - candidates make promises and statements during a campaign that become invalid the moment they start getting intelligence briefings that they never saw before. Who said we'd be there indefinitely? Not Sen. McCain. He said he would keep U.S. troops there as long as it takes, but he also said he would bring them home when the mission is accomplished. I think that's what needs to be said. Showing the enemy we have a breaking point is a terrible move.
The Big Cat Posted November 7, 2008 Author Posted November 7, 2008 Who said we'd be there indefinitely? Not Sen. McCain. He said he would keep U.S. troops there as long as it takes, but he also said he would bring them home when the mission is accomplished. I think that's what needs to be said. Showing the enemy we have a breaking point is a terrible move. Ah yes, the old "we could be there for the next hundred years" but "I'll bring them home sometime in the next 8." John McCain was not bringing ANY troops home. At least not in his own lifetime.
scribo Posted November 7, 2008 Posted November 7, 2008 How do you explain that a year ago the Iraqis themselves were saying close to the same things as Obama, and continue to? There is a stark difference between what Obama has said he will do and what the Iraqis say they want. Yes, both are looking to set a timetable, but Iraqis think they will need us though 2011, double the amount of time Obama wants to keep troops there.
erynthered Posted November 7, 2008 Posted November 7, 2008 Ah yes, the old "we could be there for the next hundred years" but "I'll bring them home sometime in the next 8." John McCain was not bringing ANY troops home. At least not in his own lifetime. You freaking hypocrite. You dismiss the video of Obamas flip flops as being taken out of context, then you come up with this gem.
Dan Posted November 7, 2008 Posted November 7, 2008 Who said we'd be there indefinitely? Not Sen. McCain. He said he would keep U.S. troops there as long as it takes, but he also said he would bring them home when the mission is accomplished. I think that's what needs to be said. Showing the enemy we have a breaking point is a terrible move. You say as long as it takes. I say indefinitely. Same difference. I prefer language more along the line of what Obama was saying towards the end of the campaign. We'll leave as soon as we can in responsible manner; with consultation from the generals in command. The fact that he changed his tone along the way gives me hope that he will listen to the generals on the ground and take their advice into consideration. But, we all have to remember, as President he has to take into consideration much more than just their opinion.
scribo Posted November 7, 2008 Posted November 7, 2008 Who was the other president to not serve? I would have thought there were more. It's a nice experience to have, don't get me wrong, but I think in the coming years such a mandate would impose a crippling reduction to the pool of qualified presidents. I think it's safe to say that military participation aint what it used to be. Clinton. And before you say he was a great president, let me say he was a terrible commander in chief and did a great deal of damage to the military that has been very expensive to fix. So what was military service that is "aint" now? I am not worried about a reduction to the pool. I think it would actually serve as very good screening process I feel we badly need.
The Big Cat Posted November 7, 2008 Author Posted November 7, 2008 You freaking hypocrite. You dismiss the video of Obamas flip flops as being taken out of context, then you come up with this gem. How is that taken out of context? "We'll stay until the job is done. The job could take 100 years. I'll bring the troops home in victory." Those three statements don't fit together.
scribo Posted November 7, 2008 Posted November 7, 2008 You say as long as it takes. I say indefinitely. Same difference. I prefer language more along the line of what Obama was saying towards the end of the campaign. We'll leave as soon as we can in responsible manner; with consultation from the generals in command. The fact that he changed his tone along the way gives me hope that he will listen to the generals on the ground and take their advice into consideration. But, we all have to remember, as President he has to take into consideration much more than just their opinion. The hysterical thing is when you break it down, that rhetoric means just what even Bush has been saying. The difference is what he deems responsible versus what McCain deems responsible. In the end, it should be up the generals, and the White House should support the commanders.
The Big Cat Posted November 7, 2008 Author Posted November 7, 2008 Clinton. And before you say he was a great president, let me say he was a terrible commander in chief and did a great deal of damage to the military that has been very expensive to fix. So what was military service that is "aint" now? I am not worried about a reduction to the pool. I think it would actually serve as very good screening process I feel we badly need. I think the reasons people enlist are totally different now than what they used to be, and I think the military at large is attractive to a different type of person. You're involved with the military, you know more about these things than me. I'm speaking as a young person taking into consideration the other young people in my own life that do or don't go into the military and why they do and why they don't.
scribo Posted November 7, 2008 Posted November 7, 2008 Ah yes, the old "we could be there for the next hundred years" but "I'll bring them home sometime in the next 8." John McCain was not bringing ANY troops home. At least not in his own lifetime. How do you justify saying that? Because there is no way to prove or disprove your statement since McCain lost, you think you can just make any statement you want about what he would have really done?
Dan Posted November 7, 2008 Posted November 7, 2008 The hysterical thing is when you break it down, that rhetoric means just what even Bush has been saying. The difference is what he deems responsible versus what McCain deems responsible. In the end, it should be up the generals, and the White House should support the commanders. I don't dispute that. And, yes, it should be up to the generals. However, you have to keep in mind that that generals have a narrow view of the world. As they should. They're primary is and should be the war. The President has to take into consideration how that war fits into the overall world view, world economy, etc. So, he can't just go completely , 100% on the recommendations of the genearals. So, my point is that for any candidate to say "this" is what I'll do and then never waiver from that statement is reckless.
The Big Cat Posted November 7, 2008 Author Posted November 7, 2008 How do you justify saying that? Because there is no way to prove or disprove your statement since McCain lost, you think you can just make any statement you want about what he would have really done? Based on some of things he said: mainly that we could be there for the next 100 years, but largely because he never offered a definition for "victory." By saying "I'll bring the troops home in victory" (something he said at EVERY stump speech), I infer that to mean, we will "win" this war while I'm in office and the troops will come home accordingly. I don't think McCain's Iraq strategy (if he even had one) even so much as HINTED at an 8 (let alone 4) year plan for victory.
scribo Posted November 7, 2008 Posted November 7, 2008 I think the reasons people enlist are totally different now than what they used to be, and I think the military at large is attractive to a different type of person. You're involved with the military, you know more about these things than me. I'm speaking as a young person taking into consideration the other young people in my own life that do or don't go into the military and why they do and why they don't. First, I am not talking about just enlisting. Most presidents were commissioned officers. I say confidently that the reason people join the military these days are no different than they joined generations ago. To serve their country, to be part of something larger than themselves, to get life experience, for a career, family tradition, etc. None of those things have changed. We still have very bright people enlisting and becoming officers. It seems our country isn't what it use to be We take our freedoms for granted. We take the vast opportunities we have for granted. We forget that blood was shed to win those rights. I don't feel like the average American understands how good we have it and how vulnerable the American way of life is.
scribo Posted November 7, 2008 Posted November 7, 2008 Based on some of things he said: mainly that we could be there for the next 100 years, but largely because he never offered a definition for "victory." By saying "I'll bring the troops home in victory" (something he said at EVERY stump speech), I infer that to mean, we will "win" this war while I'm in office and the troops will come home accordingly. I don't think McCain's Iraq strategy (if he even had one) even so much as HINTED at an 8 (let alone 4) year plan for victory. Total speculation on your part. You are refusing to take what he said at face value, but you give Obama that courtesy?
The Big Cat Posted November 7, 2008 Author Posted November 7, 2008 First, I am not talking about just enlisting. Most presidents were commissioned officers. I say confidently that the reason people join the military these days are no different than they joined generations ago. To serve their country, to be part of something larger than themselves, to get life experience, for a career, family tradition, etc. None of those things have changed. We still have very bright people enlisting and becoming officers. It seems our country isn't what it use to be We take our freedoms for granted. We take the vast opportunities we have for granted. We forget that blood was shed to win those rights. I don't feel like the average American understands how good we have it and how vulnerable the American way of life is. Had the Japanese never bombed Pearl Harbor, one could make the argument that no blood has been shed for AMERICAN freedom since the Civil War- and even that's a stretch. You will never convince me that a pre-emptive strike on a country on a different continent, that lacks any kind of military that could go toe to toe with the United States was executed because my OWN liberties were at stake. You have not/probably will never convince me of this. As for who joins the military, I don't know who was signing up generations ago, and you don't know the people that are my age that are signing up now (at least not like I do), so I don't really care to discuss that one further.
scribo Posted November 7, 2008 Posted November 7, 2008 I don't dispute that. And, yes, it should be up to the generals. However, you have to keep in mind that that generals have a narrow view of the world. As they should. They're primary is and should be the war. The President has to take into consideration how that war fits into the overall world view, world economy, etc. So, he can't just go completely , 100% on the recommendations of the genearals. So, my point is that for any candidate to say "this" is what I'll do and then never waiver from that statement is reckless. Good post. Of course the president needs to take in the big picture and make his decisions based on that. So maybe the big difference between Obama's view and my view is that Obama doesn't see an Iraq vulnerable to take over by Iran and/or al-Qaeda as much as threat to our national security as I do.
The Big Cat Posted November 7, 2008 Author Posted November 7, 2008 Total speculation on your part. You are refusing to take what he said at face value, but you give Obama that courtesy? I guess the difference is McCain hinted that his withdrawl plans would coincide with what was good for America and American pride: "I won't bring our sodliers home in defeat, I'l bring them home in victory." Obama has always said that his plans for withdrawl will hinge on the climate in Iraq.
Recommended Posts