Obama On O'Reily Tonight?

[DividedThigh]

obama would be a disaster unless he can read a teleprompter 24 hrs a day for four years,. god deliver us from such lunacy as this totally unqualified person to be president is my prayer, dt

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Rhoni

Aqilla, Many lost their lives and I truly respect that...I remember 9/11 and watched it all happen. If Obama had his way he would go talk to the terrorists...and at least Bush did something.

Blessings, Rhoni

Bush invaded Afghanistan. I applaud that. I think that's where the real battle is. Iraq wasn't necessary. It's costing too much money and sapping human resources from battling the Taliban in Afghanistan.

An attack would call for military reprisal. However, anyone with any sense knows we can't kill every Islamic fundamentalist on the planet who has terrorist leanings. Eventually we're going to have to talk to these people and see if we can diffuse the conflict somehow. The only military solution would be to kill every Muslim on the planet. That's not going to happen.

It might be of interest. If you survey Arab politics there are more fundamentalists in elected and appointed offices throughout the Arab world today than before the GWOT. Our invasion caused a political groundswell of pro-Islamic fundamentalism because they feel we're a threat to their faith and culture.

Also...talking is political. If we sit down and talk with them and they prove to be untrustworthy...that will justify any military tactic we have to take. Personally, I think it's going to take nuking a few major cities. That's what stopped Japan. To justify that we have to act harmless as doves...and if they so much as sneeze...vaporize them.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Aquila

All good points. I've supported Obama and I agree...McCain's far stronger on defense. I think some are concerned about policies. Some of our foreign policies are believed by many to be making foreign relations worse. Unless we change some policies there will be war without end. Obama does show some interest in changing some of those policies.

While McCain is strong on military defense...there's only so many beans and so many bullets. A policy change in some areas might help relieve tensions in some regions. That would be Obama's game.

Can't go with that one. I take military defense first and talk last.

[Aquila]

You have to understand some of these political concepts. Some might call it "lying" but it's just as important as killing for one's country.

For example, as President, I might promise Russia to disarm our nuclear defenses. But I'd only disarm what was previously slotted for disarmament and then place strategic nuclear elements in a top secret "stand by". I'd then have intel work on assuring that the Russians were also disarming. Odds are they'd do the same as I was doing. lol The global community however would see what appears to be "peace" and tensions would ease up a bit and it wouldn't appear that we were at the brink of war. However, if they launched something unidentifiable and it entered our air space....I'd tern Moscow into a crater.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Can't go with that one. I take military defense first and talk last.

I know you do.

I see it as a formal thing. You talk with the enemy to justify any action you have to take. Then you can say, "We've talked and they will not keep the peace. Now we vaporize them." But...if you refuse to talk you make them out to look like martyrs and that helps them recruit more fundamentalists into their ranks. It also gets the global community suspecious of your motives. And lastly...it' sets a standard by which other nations will begin using to deal with us. Russia might decide later tonight that it's not worth talking over...and just nuke us. We can't afford to wrecklessly escalate things that quickly.

Talking doesn't always achieve very much. But it gives moral high ground and justification for using extreme measures.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Aquila

You have to understand some of these political concepts. Some might call it "lying" but it's just as important as killing for one's country.

For example, as President, I might promise Russia to disarm our nuclear defenses. But I'd only disarm what was previously slotted for disarmament and then place strategic nuclear elements in a top secret "stand by". I'd then have intel work on assuring that the Russians were also disarming. Odds are they'd do the same as I was doing. lol The global community however would see what appears to be "peace" and tensions would ease up a bit and it wouldn't appear that we were at the brink of war. However, if they launched something unidentifiable and it entered our air space....I'd turn Moscow into a crater.

I agree with you here.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I know you do.

I see it as a formal thing. You talk with the enemy to justify any action you have to take. Then you can say, "We've talked and they will not keep the peace. Now we vaporize them." But...if you refuse to talk you make them out to look like martyrs and that helps them recruit more fundamentalists into their ranks. It also gets the global community suspecious of your motives. And lastly...it' sets a standard by which other nations will begin using to deal with us. Russia might decide later tonight that it's not worth talking over...and just nuke us. We can't afford to wrecklessly escalate things that quickly.

Talking doesn't always achieve very much. But it gives moral high ground and justification for using extreme measures.

When I say talk, I mean the way Obama represents himself that we have not talked enough. We've talked until we were blue in the face. We've sanctioned and talked. I just don't like how he is representing what our government has done in the past.

[Aquila]

It's just political.

For example if we were in a confrontation...I'd try to talk the situation down. But if you continued to get beligerant and continued to threaten me...I'd introduce you to a little concealed friend of mine. Everyone would know I tried to calm you down but you kept 'a' comin'.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

When I say talk, I mean the way Obama represents himself that we have not talked enough. We've talked until we were blue in the face. We've sanctioned and talked. I just don't like how he is representing what our government has done in the past.

Bro....we've sanctioned who? Iraq? Iraq didn't attack us. Now Iran is a problem. We have to show very extensive measures of diplomacy. Sanctions are part of that. But we need diplomacy and talks, that way if they get too bold we can use whatever means necessary to knock them down and maintain the moral high ground.

When my little boy is doing something wrong...I tell him what he's doing and I tell him to stop. I don't just swoop in and hit him without clarifying what he's done, giving him a chance, or letting him know why I'm hitting him.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

When I say talk, I mean the way Obama represents himself that we have not talked enough. We've talked until we were blue in the face. We've sanctioned and talked. I just don't like how he is representing what our government has done in the past.

Do you remember when Bush refused to renew the ban on ballistic nuclear missle testing? Do you realize that that did? A nation can begin testing weapons of this nature...and claim they've violated no law. That disarms us from having legal right to issue sanctions or take action. We'd have to simply act as an aggressor to protect our interests. Bro....Bush has been a major dissaster on many foreign relation fronts.

While the "talk" behind the ballistic nulcear missle testing ban didn't really prevent anyone from violating the treaty underhandedly....it gave justification for us to do whatever we felt was necessary.