Clarks slam of McCain and Obama's Okay donkey of it.

ejward · Joined: Jan 06, 2003 Posts: 6521

rovingcowboy wrote:

kenmabmcc wrote:

xavierx wrote:

Perhaps you missed the fact that Terrorists have been at war with us for many years, and attacked us here multiple times ...

Terrorist attacks are not a war,
they are just criminal acts.

Wink

hogwash .

they have declared war on us they want to wipe the Americans off the face of the earth why in bloody h ...l can't we declare war on them. Shocked

How many terrorist plots have been stopped by the war in Iraq or Afganastan? Zero. All of the plots that have been stopped have been stopped with good law enforcement. If we were to take just one tenth of the money we've wasted in Iraq and invested it in law enforcement, we'd be just fine. And even if we did have a few terrorist attacks that killed a few hundred Americans, it's far less than the number of Americans that have been killed in Iraq. More people have become terrorists BECAUSE of our actions in the middle east than before we went in. We are creating a whole generation of terrorists that our kids and grand kids will be fighting. The problem is that they won't have any money to fight them with because they will still be paying for THIS war.

clhenry

Quote:

How many terrorist plots have been stopped by the war in Iraq or Afganastan? Zero. All of the plots that have been stopped have been stopped with good law enforcement.

Most of these agency's were created after 911 to fight terrorism, and are tied into the the war against terrorist. Also terror attacks are down 60% all over the world, not just Iraq. Many factions have surrendered and layed down their weapons, and went back to a regular life. Others have stated they don't agree with what and who the terrorist are attacking and have walked away.

Quote:

And even if we did have a few terrorist attacks that killed a few hundred Americans, it's far less than the number of Americans that have been killed in Iraq.

You may be happy if we have a few terrorist attacks that only kill a few hundred people, but i'm not, and i don't know to many Americans who would be. We have more people killed from gang violence on our street corners killed per year than we do soldiers killed yearly in Iraq.

michael_e · Joined: Jan 24, 2003 Posts: 85

I believe Sen. McCain has more than enough experience to fullfill the "Commander-in-Chief of the military forces" part of the presidency because of his military career as a whole. Both he and Sen. Obama have yards of experience in domestic issues because of their political offices held. What both need to do is what Ronald Reagan did - surround yourself with a VP, cabinet and staff that will fill the inexperience gaps, like the economy for McCain (by his own admission), and all things military (CinC) for Obama. Noone can be "experienced" in all aspects and responsibilities that go to making up a president, so, IMO, that's why you carefully vet a VEEP and cherry pick the best and brightest to advise you in your more inexperienced areas. That would raise the electorate's confidence level in each candidate's capability to run the country.

My dve kopecki

Mike, Independent and Undecided in MD

clhenry

mommabear · Joined: Feb 20, 2003 Posts: 6185

ejward · Joined: Jan 06, 2003 Posts: 6521

ejward · Joined: Jan 06, 2003 Posts: 6521

ejward · Joined: Jan 06, 2003 Posts: 6521

xavierx · Joined: Nov 06, 2004 Posts: 3871

mommabear · Joined: Feb 20, 2003 Posts: 6185

kenmabmcc

drwho07 · Joined: Nov 29, 2007 Posts: 1134 Location: Central FL, USA

Did you see on the news where the truck drivers in India have parked their trucks and walked away.....in protest of the high fuel prices?

Did Bush cause that? I seriously doubt it!

On the Commander & Chief debate.....
I don't think the President of the US should be the Commander of the armed forces. That should be the job of the top General.
Every time an officer gets a promotion, he's expected to take on more responsibility. Our top General should be the Commander of ALL our armed forces. The office of the president should be an administrative post, not a Military post. There's no guarantee that any president will have the ability, experience or knowledge to be the Commander of the military. Not since "Ike" have we had a president with the experience and qualifications to be the Commander & Chief of our armed forces.

The CEO of GM, can't build a car and the CEO of GE can't build a light bulb or a jet engine.

Let the people with the experience to properly do a job.....do the job.

Now, who has the most experience in our form of Government, to be the CEO of the United States? Question

I rest my case.
Doc Cool

Sgt Schultz · Joined: Dec 07, 2002 Posts: 6828 Location: St. Louis area

Unfortunately we have two senators running for president. Senators legislate, they don't manage or govern. It doesn't matter how long they've been in office they don't run anything. At least Bush was a governor. I may not like his politics but at least he had that level of experience.

As for the president being the Commander in Chief of the armed forces it is not a "military" position. The Constitution clearly spells out that it is a civilian position. That is why I laughed when Clinton pulled that card during the Lewinsky scandal..but I digress. The Joint Chiefs of Staff advise the president and he makes the decision to go or no go. After that the generals in charge run the show as far as tactics and such. If the president is getting involved in tactical situations we are asking for nothing but trouble i.e. Vietnam.