Naivete is why I can't vote Obama...

[Takvah]

I know that some people will watch this 52 second video and see nothing but Xanadu. (http://www.youtube.com/v/dl32Y7wDVDs&hl=en) What I see is a naivete about the world that is frankly scary. While China seeks to weaponize space and to expand its borders by buying up (for now) farm land in foreign countries... Obama seems to take a "head in the sand" approach to the world. Saving money is great, but we have to maintain our technical superiority when it comes to weapons systems in order to remain capable of securing our national security interests. We don't have the largest deployable force... so we create weapons that allow us to do more, with less. Those wasteful systems keep our fighting men and women ALIVE. This guy is simply out of touch with the reality that is the world (in my opinion) and this video illustrates that... people wonder why I have no intention of voting for this guy... this is a large part of it. I don't think he has any kind of clue as to what he is proposing. Getting ICBMs off of a hair trigger ... great. Torching the development of weapons systems and hiring consultants to tell the military what it needs or does not need... not so great.

[johnnysannie]

Puh-leeze. No President or Presidential candidate could be any more clueless, naieve, and out of touch with reality that George W. Bush and he's spending his last of eight effing years in the White House.

You see what you want because you don't like Barack Obama.

[Takvah]

Puh-leeze. No President or Presidential candidate could be any more clueless, naieve, and out of touch with reality that George W. Bush and he's spending his last of eight effing years in the White House.

You see what you want because you don't like Barack Obama.

I see what I want to see? This is the guy in his own words. Take it up with him.

[johnnysannie]

I see what I want to see? This is the guy in his own words. Take it up with him.

I find nothing offensive or inappropriate about Obama's words.

You, however, want to spar and cause offense.

[Takvah]

You took offense because you're all Obama all the time. I just supported why it is that I cannot in good conscience vote for the guy (after people have asserted that we detractors harbor some kind of "ism") and you're on the warpath. Get ahold of yourself. If you take offense to the opinion, that's an issue you need to resolve within yourself.

[BenPanced]

OMFG! SOMEBODY DISAGREES THAT BARACK OBAMA IS NOT THE CANDIDATE TO VOTE FOR THIS ELECTION YEAR! H8R!!!

So, yeah, somebody dotting their personal opinion with "in my opinion" is cause to get up in arms because, after all, it's the conclusion they came to by researching the issue and *gasp!* forming an independent opinion.

Get serious.

[johnnysannie]

You took offense because you're all Obama all the time. I just supported why it is that I cannot in good conscience vote for the guy (after people have asserted that we detractors harbor some kind of "ism") and you're on the warpath. Get ahold of yourself. If you take offense to the opinion, that's an issue you need to resolve within yourself.

:tongue

Not worth answering with words.

[James81]

Puh-leeze. No President or Presidential candidate could be any more clueless, naieve, and out of touch with reality that George W. Bush and he's spending his last of eight effing years in the White House.

You see what you want because you don't like Barack Obama.

You know, I honestly never bought ino the naivette and cluelessness of Dubya. I think it's all an act and he definately knows exactly what he is doing and what he has done.

[benbradley]

:popcorn:

[Elwood]

I know that some people will watch this 52 second video and see nothing but Xanadu. (http://www.youtube.com/v/dl32Y7wDVDs&hl=en) What I see is a naivete about the world that is frankly scary. While China seeks to weaponize space and to expand its borders by buying up (for now) farm land in foreign countries... Obama seems to take a "head in the sand" approach to the world. Saving money is great, but we have to maintain our technical superiority when it comes to weapons systems in order to remain capable of securing our national security interests. We don't have the largest deployable force... so we create weapons that allow us to do more, with less. Those wasteful systems keep our fighting men and women ALIVE. This guy is simply out of touch with the reality that is the world (in my opinion) and this video illustrates that... people wonder why I have no intention of voting for this guy... this is a large part of it. I don't think he has any kind of clue as to what he is proposing. Getting ICBMs off of a hair trigger ... great. Torching the development of weapons systems and hiring consultants to tell the military what it needs or does not need... not so great.

Interesting! I read this and found nothing offensive or sparable! Seems like it is an honest opinion to me. Guess I have not been around long enough here to understand why this is offensive and or sparable! Plus I agree! I think I agree with Mr. Panced as well! Of course being young and always confused I really do not know!

[cethklein]

A better title would be "Paranoia: Why I'll vote for McCain

[cethklein]

I find nothing offensive or inappropriate about Obama's words.

You, however, want to spar and cause offense.

I have to disagree. Even if he may wants to cause offense, he's not succeeding. It's his opinion (you should know that by now, he makes a note of reminding us with a new topic on the subject almost daily. I guess he's afraid we might have forgotten.) I guess I have to play devil's advocate here, he is stating an opinion. Nothing wrong with that, even if it is repetitive.

[NikeeGoddess]

this is what makes hillary more electable in the general election. she can take the reagan democrats and swing voters who teeter in the middle.

[Takvah]

A better title would be "Paranoia: Why I'll vote for McCain

:D

Or, "Barack Obama's world view, dopier than the plot of Superman IV?"

[Takvah]

I have to disagree. Even if he may wants to cause offense, he's not succeeding. It's his opinion (you should know that by now, he makes a note of reminding us with a new topic on the subject almost daily. I guess he's afraid we might have forgotten.) I guess I have to play devil's advocate here, he is stating an opinion. Nothing wrong with that, even if it is repetitive.

I'm sorry, I must have missed the thread where this video was presented as an exhibit. My bad.

[donroc]

High IQ, intellectuality, and high GPA do not guarantee success. Emotional maturity, practical intelligence and the talent to select smarter people to carry out programs are consideranly more desirable qualities in a candidate and political leader at any level.

[Takvah]

this is what makes hillary more electable in the general election. she can take the reagan democrats and swing voters who teeter in the middle.

You know it's a shame that she isn't going to pull this out... because you're right.

[Elwood]

High IQ, intellectuality, and high GPA do not guarantee success. Emotional maturity, practical intelligence and the talent to select smarter people to carry out programs are consideranly more desirable qualities in a candidate and political leader at any level.


donroc for Prez!!! Hey what is wrong with a viable alternative?

[Takvah]

High IQ, intellectuality, and high GPA do not guarantee success. Emotional maturity, practical intelligence and the talent to select smarter people to carry out programs are consideranly more desirable qualities in a candidate and political leader at any level.

Amen. I know many engineers that are intellectually magnificent... but also have the common sense of a house plant.

[donroc]

donroc for Prez!!! Hey what is wrong with a viable alternative?

In all humility, I would rather be a Gray Eminence. :D

[Elwood]

Why do I have the feeling that this is an election where the blind are leading the hopeful? Not a smart ass question just the feeling I have.

[Elwood]

In all humility, I would rather be a Gray Eminence. :D

I hear you but when I see logic undefiled, well, I understand! Gray Eminence, shnark, chuckle, thanks for that!:D

[ACEnders]

You know, I honestly never bought ino the naivette and cluelessness of Dubya. I think it's all an act and he definately knows exactly what he is doing and what he has done.

I've wondered that myself.

[Elwood]

Perhaps the situation with Dubya is that he is just a nice guy.

People running the country should be leaders, not necessarily nice guys. Yes perhaps that is naive regarding Bush being a nice guy, but hell, maybe he is just a nice simple chap who wants to do good things for the country, has some close buddies, and the buddies are idiots?

Dunno but it does seem to me that this country as many in the western world is too concerned with appearances and not foundation. I mean if a statesman or woman came along that looked like they should live under a bridge they would probably have null chance to be elected don't you think? As my old gramma used to say. Never mind the qvuality, feel de vidth. Alright that was stolen from an English sit com but she might very well have said just that. Besides which this post has nothing to do with the OP's thoughts so I will slink out.

I know many believe that old George is the devil incarnate but maybe he is just a well meaning naive nice guy? Right or wrong, dangerous as hell because nice and naive are just that when it comes to running a country!

[rugcat]

I don't see Obama as naive at all. I see a different worldview from Bush, Cheney, et al, but the question is not so much what Obama's goals are as how he will go about achieving them.

Don't forget, the least naive people imaginable are Cheney and Rumsfeld, and yet their view of the world situation turned out to be as clueless as it's possible to be. Not just in policy, which is always debatable. On every single quantifiable prediction they made about the how US actions would impact things, they turned out to be completely wrong.

Their supporters will never own up, however, nor will they. After all, Henry Kissenger, the architect of reallpolitik, still maintains that going into Vietnam was a great idea, it's just that the war was mismanaged -- sound familiar?

Obama is often mocked for his politics of hope, mostly by those who buy into the politics of paranoia. The idea seems to be that Obama might govern in a way that would be dangerous to the safety of this country, so better to go with a "strong" leader -- even if that leader vows to continue policies that have resulted in already making our country less safe.

I've often said I believe Hillary would make a more effective president than Obama. But that doesn't mean I need to demonize the guy -- I think he'll do quite well, and might even surprise some people who now think he's naive and can't handle the job.

[InfinityGoddess]

this is what makes hillary more electable in the general election. she can take the reagan democrats and swing voters who teeter in the middle.

No Democrat has won more than at least 16% or 17% of the so-called "Reagan Democrats". They are the least most reliable voting bloc for the Democrats to depend on. And Hillary has some trouble getting the independent swing voters to her side (Obama has won more popular votes in that much more important bloc).

[Elwood]

If Obama becomes president of course his first test will be the terrorist attack which will kill many either here or abroad. Americans mostly! They will test him to see how he reacts to the attack. It should occur within the first quarter of his presidency.

Oh how can you say that do not be paranoid or naive, how do you know? Well the truth is of course I do not and I hope I am wrong. However, time will tell. If Hillary is elected I do not believe this will happen. With the Republican nominee, if elected, it will not happen. This is not to say that Obama is the wrong choice and that war is good or that Iraq is justified which I believe it is. No not war but the invasion of Iraq, sheesh! I believe that Mr. Obama is the wrong choice as is Mrs. Clinton. Viva America! viva free speach. I hope that free speaking does not become a wished for afterthought!

[InfinityGoddess]

If Obama becomes president of course his first test will be the terrorist attack which will kill many either here or abroad. Americans mostly! They will test him to see how he reacts to the attack. It should occur within the first quarter of his presidency.

Oh how can you say that do not be paranoid or naive, how do you know? Well the truth is of course I do not and I hope I am wrong. However, time will tell. If Hillary is elected I do not believe this will happen. With the Republican nominee, if elected, it will not happen. This is not to say that Obama is the wrong choice and that war is good or that Iraq is justified which I believe it is. No not war but the invasion of Iraq, sheesh! I believe that Mr. Obama is the wrong choice as is Mrs. Clinton. Viva America! viva free speach. I hope that free speaking does not become a wished for afterthought!

Oh, and we're so much safer now, aren't we? Considering that we're pissing off the people in Iraq and other countries along her borders by you know, NOT LEAVING when the people in Iraq want us out of their country and killing her people for just simply going to the grocery store using Blackwater mercs? Considering that Bush has put little, if any effort in securing the Homeland? Yeah, I feel safe, all right.

You can believe what you want with Hillary and Obama but to claim that they will be "soft on terror" is relatively laughable, especially considering that we've had Democratic presidents in the past who presided over times of war and they were anything but cowards and what Bill Clinton did in regards to the terrorists who blew up the WTC the first time in the '90s and Oklahoma City. The guys who bombed the WTC in the '90s are in jail, rotting out the rest of their lives (figure that!) and Tim McVeigh was excuted while his buddy Terry Nichols is rotting in prison.

[Elwood]

Oh, and we're so much safer now, aren't we? Considering that we're pissing off the people in Iraq and other countries along her borders by you know, NOT LEAVING when the people in Iraq want us out of their country and killing her people for just simply going to the grocery store using Blackwater mercs? Considering that Bush has put little, if any effort in securing the Homeland? Yeah, I feel safe, all right.

You can believe what you want with Hillary and Obama but to claim that they will be "soft on terror" is relatively laughable, especially considering that we've had Democratic presidents in the past who presided over times of war and they were anything but cowards and what Bill Clinton did in regards to the terrorists who blew up the WTC the first time in the '90s and Oklahoma City. The guys who bombed the WTC in the '90s are in jail, rotting out the rest of their lives (figure that!) and Tim McVeigh was excuted while his buddy Terry Nichols is rotting in prison.


As to pissin off people in Iraq? Well at least they now have the privelege to be openly pissed off. I think before they just went about their lives happy and full of joy. I know I know!

As far as security here is concerned I think since 9/11 there have been no terrorist attacks on our country. I do think Obama might be soft on terror, as I said I do not know it as a fact but as I said time will tell. I said also that if Mrs Clinton is elected the attack might not occur. If the Republican nominee is elected there will be no attack in my opinion.

I never stated the Democrats would not be tough on terrorists or terrorism, there is no hisorical evidence for that as far as I know. I was referring to the suits now running. I am neither Democrat nor Republican but an independent who sees no real statemen or women running for the office. So as far as life as it is now, not then, and for the security of the future, yes yes I realize that arguement is futile, that unfortunately with all his foibles the Republican might be the best choice for me, that's all!

[Sheryl Nantus]

well, Obama has already said that he'll send troops into Pakistan to get Bin Laden...

:D

[InfinityGoddess]

As to pissin off people in Iraq? Well at least they now have the privelege to be openly pissed off. I think before they just went about their lives happy and full of joy. I know I know!

As far as security here is concerned I think since 9/11 there have been no terrorist attacks on our country. I do think Obama might be soft on terror, as I said I do not know it as a fact but as I said time will tell. I said also that if Mrs Clinton is elected the attack might not occur. If the Republican nominee is elected there will be no attack in my opinion.

We're having terrorists attacking us, alright. In Iraq and Afghanistan. Just because it's our soldiers getting attacked, doesn't mean that we don't have it happening.

And under a President McCain, I can expect it to get worse because he wants to attack Iran. Much worse. And having two anti-Muslim preachers at his side will be a sign to the Muslim world that we really are in a "crusade" against their religion.

[Elwood]

Great Expectations huh? Perhaps old McCain will not attack Hitlermajad but then again maybe he will. I think Israel might just jump in and save the situation, you never know! Where is good old Neville when you need him?

[InfinityGoddess]

Great Expectations huh? Perhaps old McCain will not attack Hitlermajad but then again maybe he will. I think Israel might just jump in and save the situation, you never know! Where is good old Neville when you need him?

Israel would be committing what is akin to suicide if they "saved" the situation. And Ahmadinejad is not the leader of Iran; the mullahs are, and they've already taken him to the woodshed over saber-rattling us.

[Celia Cyanide]

As far as security here is concerned I think since 9/11 there have been no terrorist attacks on our country. I do think Obama might be soft on terror, as I said I do not know it as a fact but as I said time will tell. I said also that if Mrs Clinton is elected the attack might not occur. If the Republican nominee is elected there will be no attack in my opinion.

Why do you think this?

[talkwrite]

I can tell you first hand that the African American Obama supporters I worked with at the Democratic senatorial convention were anti choice, religious right and homophobic. Vehemently. All first time voters and novice party activists they were shocked at the egalitarian language of the registration forms and the absence of prayer during the sessions. They had no clue as to any foreign policy points Obama has or even what the Democratic party platform contained. Based on that experience I feel that a dangerously large number of Obama's supporters are voting for him based solely on the color of his skin. That would be just as uninformed an electorate as women voting for Clinton just because she is a woman.

[Elwood]

have not noticed any on the old homeland have you? Stand to be corrected here if I am wrong!

[Elwood]

Israel would be committing what is akin to suicide if they "saved" the situation. And Ahmadinejad is not the leader of Iran; the mullahs are, and they've already taken him to the woodshed over saber-rattling us.


I disagree regarding Israel, they have enough juevos to do it easily if the man leading their country would just take a nice trip somewhere fah from the madding crowd. Yes I know he is the titular leader and the Mullah's who are peace loving dudes have ordered him to stop saber-rattling and get on with the business of suppressing women's rights! About time the damn country got things in order don't cha think?:D

[InfinityGoddess]

I can tell you first hand that the African American Obama supporters I worked with at the Democratic senatorial convention were anti choice, religious right and homophobic. Vehemently. All first time voters and novice party activists they were shocked at the egalitarian language of the registration forms and the absence of prayer during the sessions. They had no clue as to any foreign policy points Obama has or even what the Democratic party platform contained. Based on that experience I feel that a dangerously large number of Obama's supporters are voting for him based solely on the color of his skin. That would be just as uninformed an electorate as women voting for Clinton just because she is a woman.

I don't think that's the case. If it were, Obama wouldn't be so popular. His message about reaching out to others and helping them is what's driving people to vote for him. While there may be a few out there voting for Obama because he is black (like some voters who may be voting for Clinton on the basis of her sex), they do not make up the majority of the voting populace that has gone for Obama. They are thirsty for change, and many feel that voting for Clinton is like voting in a dynasty. We've already had Bush I, then Bill Clinton, and then Bush II. Why do we need another Clinton? Why should those two families have the monopoly on the Presidency? Answer: They shouldn't.

On top of all that, Clinton's had some lousy advisers and insists that the states that didn't vote for her "doesn't count". Which was a very stupid way of thinking.

[POPASMOKE]

Israel would be committing what is akin to suicide if they "saved" the situation. And Ahmadinejad is not the leader of Iran; the mullahs are, and they've already taken him to the woodshed over saber-rattling us.

Gee IG, the whuppin must not have taken....


By ALI AKBAR DAREINI - Associated Press Writer

TEHRAN, Iran(AP) Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Wednesday that Israel is dying and that its 60th anniversary celebrations are an attempt to prevent its "annihilation."
He spoke hours after President Bush arrived in Israel for the anniversary celebrations.
"The Zionist (Israeli) regime is dying," said Ahmadinejad during a speech in northern Iran. "The criminals assume that by holding celebrations ... they can save the sinister Zionist regime from death and annihilation."
Ahmadinejad used an Arabic word, ismihlal, that can also be translated as destruction, death and collapse.
Iran doesn't recognize Israel, and Ahmadinejad has repeatedly called for Israel's destruction. Threatening exchanges between Iran and Israel have intensified since 2005, when Ahmadinejad said in a speech that Israel will one day be "wiped off the map." The Iranian leader has also described the Holocaust as a "myth."



As to Israel committing "suicide", you seem to have forgotten about their airstrike on Iraq in 1981 that took out an Iraqi reactor, and their more recent (2007) commando raid on Syria in which they seized North Korean nuclear material. Bottom line....if that idiot in Iran keeps running his current game plan, he's going to wake up one morning and find an Israeli missle buried in his ass!

[InfinityGoddess]

I disagree regarding Israel, they have enough juevos to do it easily if the man leading their country would just take a nice trip somewhere fah from the madding crowd. Yes I know he is the titular leader and the Mullah's who are peace loving dudes have ordered him to stop saber-rattling and get on with the business of suppressing women's rights! About time the damn country got things in order don't cha think?:D

It is not our place to be the world's policemen. If the Iranians wanted their leaders out that badly, they will do it well enough on their own without our "help", especially seeing that the last time we "helped" them oust a leader, they turned into the lovely theocracy they are today.

In fact, we've really "helped" other countries so much, that we gave Chile to Pinochet, a military dictator who tortured his own people. We ousted a democratically elected populist leader because, Goddess forbid, he didn't want to play ball with us. "Exporting democracy" we are not, and it is arrogant to assume that we know better than other countries how their countries ought to be run because the truth is that we don't. If people like our democracy so much, they will take to it willingly. It doesn't work so well to force the process at the barrel of a gun.

Secondly, Israel already lives in a hostile enough neighborhood that to just piss off the neighbors more really and is literally akin to suicide. There was a really bad world reaction to how they dealt with Hezbollah in Lebanon because so many civilians were caught in the middle and they can't afford to have that happen again.

[Elwood]

Gee IG, the whuppin must not have taken....



As to Israel committing "suicide", you seem to have forgotten about their airstrike on Iraq in 1981 that took out an Iraqi reactor, and their more recent (2007) commando raid on Syria in which they seized North Korean nuclear material. Bottom line....if that idiot in Iran keeps running his current game plan, he's going to wake up one morning and find an Israeli missle buried in his ass!


Damn I hate it when someone says it so much better than I did!!!! Well stated fact, thanks!

[Takvah]

Israel would be committing what is akin to suicide if they "saved" the situation. And Ahmadinejad is not the leader of Iran; the mullahs are, and they've already taken him to the woodshed over saber-rattling us.

They must be speaking out of both sides of their mouths because this is what Khamanei had to say on May 4th: (http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2008/05/04/iran_will_not_bow_to_western_pressure_leader_says/)

TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran will not give up its rights in the face of Western pressure, its supreme leader said on Sunday, two days after major powers said they would make a new offer to convince Tehran to halt its nuclear plans.
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei did not explicitly mention Iran's nuclear activities, which Western powers suspect are aimed at making bombs, but Iranian officials have repeatedly ruled out halting the program which they say is a national right.

State television said Khamenei cited "some recent threats by arrogant powers," a reference to the Islamic Republic's Western foes. The United States has recently repeated it wants diplomacy to end the nuclear row but will not rule out military action.

"We will not allow the arrogant ones to step on the right of this nation," he said in a speech in the southern province of Fars. "Threatening the Iranian nation will not make it retreat."

"This nation has chosen its path towards perfection, honor, complete independence ... and no threat can persuade (it) to stop its path," Khamenei, Iran's top authority, told the crowd.

And a lot of good the trip to the woodshed did... Ahmadinejad was out there this week saying that the end of Israel would come soon... yeah, sometime at the end of January 2009.

[InfinityGoddess]

Gee IG, the whuppin must not have taken....

He is not a threat to us. He's just talking big.

As to Israel committing "suicide", you seem to have forgotten about their airstrike on Iraq in 1981 that took out an Iraqi reactor, and their more recent (2007) commando raid on Syria in which they seized North Korean nuclear material. Bottom line....if that idiot in Iran keeps running his current game plan, he's going to wake up one morning and find an Israeli missle buried in his ass!

Doesn't matter. It is akin to suicide because the world (in general) sees Israel as an aggressor being egged on by the US.

[InfinityGoddess]

They must be speaking out of both sides of their mouths because this is what Khamanei had to say on May 4th: (http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2008/05/04/iran_will_not_bow_to_western_pressure_leader_says/)
TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran will not give up its rights in the face of Western pressure, its supreme leader said on Sunday, two days after major powers said they would make a new offer to convince Tehran to halt its nuclear plans.
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei did not explicitly mention Iran's nuclear activities, which Western powers suspect are aimed at making bombs, but Iranian officials have repeatedly ruled out halting the program which they say is a national right.

State television said Khamenei cited "some recent threats by arrogant powers," a reference to the Islamic Republic's Western foes. The United States has recently repeated it wants diplomacy to end the nuclear row but will not rule out military action.

"We will not allow the arrogant ones to step on the right of this nation," he said in a speech in the southern province of Fars. "Threatening the Iranian nation will not make it retreat."

"This nation has chosen its path towards perfection, honor, complete independence ... and no threat can persuade (it) to stop its path," Khamenei, Iran's top authority, told the crowd.



And you don't think that might have something to do with us saber-rattling them?


And a lot of good the trip to the woodshed did... Ahmadinejad was out there this week saying that the end of Israel would come soon... yeah, sometime at the end of January 2009.

He can't do anything to bring about it. So that's a moot issue.

[Takvah]

And you don't think that might have something to do with us saber-rattling them?


[/indent]
He can't do anything to bring about it. So that's a moot issue.

Dammit... no Pepto Bismol... here at work! OWWWWWIE!

[Elwood]

It is not our place to be the world's policemen. If the Iranians wanted their leaders out that badly, they will do it well enough on their own without our "help", especially seeing that the last time we "helped" them oust a leader, they turned into the lovely theocracy they are today.

In fact, we've really "helped" other countries so much, that we gave Chile to Pinochet, a military dictator who tortured his own people. We ousted a democratically elected populist leader because, Goddess forbid, he didn't want to play ball with us. "Exporting democracy" we are not, and it is arrogant to assume that we know better than other countries how their countries ought to be run because the truth is that we don't. If people like our democracy so much, they will take to it willingly. It doesn't work so well to force the process at the barrel of a gun.

Secondly, Israel already lives in a hostile enough neighborhood that to just piss off the neighbors more really and is literally akin to suicide. There was a really bad world reaction to how they dealt with Hezbollah in Lebanon because so many civilians were caught in the middle and they can't afford to have that happen again.


Regarding Iran, damn that Jimmy Carter!!!! Anyway I agree we are not the world's cops, never have been and we never should be, like I said where the hell is Neville when you need him. Neville is that you? Damn, it is not, it is Goober. What up Goob still the traitor always the traitor?

I forget, who was president when we aided and abetted Pinochet? Who ran the Senate, who sat in Congress?

Damned arrogant I agree!

[InfinityGoddess]

Regarding Iran, damn that Jimmy Carter!!!! Anyway I agree we are not the world's cops, never have been and we never should be, like I said where the hell is Neville when you need him. Neville is that you? Damn, it is not, it is Goober. What up Goob still the traitor always the traitor?

I forget, who was president when we aided and abetted Pinochet? Who ran the Senate, who sat in Congress?

Damned arrogant I agree!

Iran lost its democracy long before Carter came to power. Nice try, though.

Pinochet came to power in the early 1970's, around the time of Gerald Ford.

[CDarklock]

I think since 9/11 there have been no terrorist attacks on our country.

I think we should also remember that before 9/11 there had been no terrorist attacks on our country.

My concerns over Obama's naivete are largely addressed by his stated intent to consult with experts about issues where he doesn't have enough information. Listen carefully to his rhetoric about Iraq: he generally avoids saying he will do anything, and is just saying he wants to do things. He's also said he can't make any real plans or decisions without consulting the experts and fully understanding the situation.

I think that's smart. I think that's exactly what a President ought to do. And I don't see anyone else out there doing it.

[Elwood]

Iran lost its democracy long before Carter came to power. Nice try, though.

Pinochet came to power in the early 1970's, around the time of Gerald Ford.


So how does your shah suggestion come into play? I thought it was a pretty good try myself, thanks!

Whew I thought old Goober might have had something to do with that Pinochet fella! Have a great day, been nice talking with you. Gotta go help a rich fella straighten out his slice!:D

He is a war monger, not kidding, but I gotta make a living, got a right to make a living, but to tell you the truth because he is a stinking war monger industrialist creep. Well, he takes care of his family and has not as yet forbidden his daughters to think and has actually encouraged them to be women who can stand up and be counted and proud and all that crap, but I am punishing him by only letting him know how to be a better golfer in tits and farts-er-bits and pieces.

It is indeed an evil world and I am but a tiny part of the evil. Evil still but not so bad, well not really, oh alright I am evil I admit it!:D

[Siddow]

When you said Xanadu, I thought this, (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7m1UWSD-FaA) and was sorely disappointed to find that it was another boring speech, and not chicks on roller skates. Carry on.

[rugcat]

Iran lost its democracy long before Carter came to power. Nice try, though.Iran lost it's democracy in 1953 when the US used the CIA to help overthrow their elected government and install the Shah, a dictator much in the mold of Saddam.

The excuse for this was that the (elected) Iranian Government tried to nationalize British oil interests. The brutality of the Shah's regime, backed by the US, led directly to the rise of Islamic nationalists, culminating in the Iranian revolution and the problems we face today.

We don't seem to have learned a whole lot.

[Takvah]

I think we should also remember that before 9/11 there had been no terrorist attacks on our country.

1993 WTC bombing.

Oklahoma City (domestic terror)

There have been attacks on embassies, barracks and other facilities the world over as well... so I think you should clarify what you mean by that.


My concerns over Obama's naivete are largely addressed by his stated intent to consult with experts about issues where he doesn't have enough information. Listen carefully to his rhetoric about Iraq: he generally avoids saying he will do anything, and is just saying he wants to do things. He's also said he can't make any real plans or decisions without consulting the experts and fully understanding the situation.

I think that's smart. I think that's exactly what a President ought to do. And I don't see anyone else out there doing it.

McCain says the same thing... especially about the economy and is strung up by the media for it.

[Takvah]

Iran lost it's democracy in 1953 when the US used the CIA to help overthrow their elected government and install the Shah, a dictator much in the mold of Saddam.

The excuse for this was that the (elected) Iranian Government tried to nationalize British oil interests. The brutality of the Shah's regime, backed by the US, led directly to the rise of Islamic nationalists, culminating in the Iranian revolution and the problems we face today.

We don't seem to have learned a whole lot.

Exactly right... and then we went into Iraq after Saddam started trading oil in Euros. I'm not for the war and I know that we didn't go into this for any noble reasons. I just happen to be a realist and recognize that we are there and that we can't now leave these people to die. I'm not prepared to see Iran, Saudi Arabia and the Kurds duke it out for Iraq. While the idea that these thug regimes would incur some losses and have to expend treasure (blood money) on such an effort has a certain appeal... it's all too dangerous and could lead to a conflict far beyond what we are facing today.

Leaving Iraqis to the slaughter isn't an option... but perhaps a real leader and a real foreign policy initiative headed up by a worthwhile Secretary of State could bring about ACTUAL independence for Iraq. Getting up and outta there... that's just as big a pipedream as Bush's "it'll happen" approach.

[CDarklock]

I think you should clarify what you mean by that.

Successful attack by foreign terrorists on American soil.

We have had unsuccessful terrorist plots on American soil since 9/11. DHS and FBI efforts have prevented any of them from getting very far. You might also consider whether the Muslim who went on the shooting spree in the Jewish Community Center here in Washington state was a terrorist, and whether that was a plot, and whether it was successful. But since the Muslim in question was an American citizen acting alone, I don't think it qualifies.

[Takvah]

The WTC bombing in 1993 was a successful attack. The bomb went off... but the poured concrete foundations of the WTC absorbed the blast. Six people died and 1040 or so were injured (granted most during the evac).

[CDarklock]

The WTC bombing in 1993 was a successful attack.

Rather depends on your definition of "successful". I don't think the terrorists just wanted to "set off a bomb". I think they wanted to bring down the building.

[Takvah]

Rather depends on your definition of "successful". I don't think the terrorists just wanted to "set off a bomb". I think they wanted to bring down the building.

I think your perception might be different if you were one of the six people that were planted because of this act.

[CDarklock]

I think your perception might be different if you were one of the six people that were planted because of this act.

You're probably right. A living person has very different perceptions than a dead one. But now we're back to the whole religion question again. ;)

[POPASMOKE]

Rather depends on your definition of "successful". I don't think the terrorists just wanted to "set off a bomb". I think they wanted to bring down the building.

Takvah is quite correct. They penetrated the U.S., completed their plan, obtained the components, constructed the device, implemented their plan and detonated the device without being detected until after.

A classic successful op.

[Takvah]

But now we're back to the whole religion question again. ;)

DOH! :D

[rugcat]

Getting up and outta there... that's just as big a pipedream as Bush's "it'll happen" approach.No, we can't just pull out tomorrow. But neither can we stay there forever. Both courses will have terrible consequences, so we need a middle ground -- an exit strategy, as they say.

But to get back to the original thread, the point of my reminder about the history of the US and Iran is this:

Back then, the US was faced with a government in Iran that was veering left, and the fear of its allying itself with our arch enemy the Soviet Union, was scary. So like Iraq, it wasn't all about oil -- it was also about a perceived threat to our security.

And although I wasn't around then, I'd bet there were those who proposed diplomacy and compromise, and who were dismissed as hopelessly naive by the hard liners who eventually prevailed -- the Cheneys of the day, who lived in the "real world" and believed the best diplomacy was the type that comes out of the barrel of a gun.

And you know what? They're not always wrong. But they are wrong as often as they're right, and the consequences of their mistakes can be serious and long lasting.

So the idea that these hard liners are somehow more in touch with reality and that their decisions are intrinsically more grounded and sensible is a myth.

Obama is criticized for his lack of experience in foreign policy, and that is indeed a legitimate concern. But as he has pointed out himself, the most experienced people imaginable in that area were arguably Cheney and Rumsfeld. Hard liners, both, with ideological beliefs about how the world works.

And in their own way, incredibly naive people -- they had no idea what they were getting into or what the problems and consequences would be. But no one thinks of them that way -- simply because they talk tough and believe that threats and military might are the way to deal with the world.