Obama On O'Reily Tonight?

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by 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'.

Right.

Originally Posted by Aquila

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.

We've used sanctions in many instances. I wasn't specifically speaking of Iraq. Hussein, not Obama (), wouldn't work with us and we stood with other countries against who he was, what he promised and what he did to his people. Enough talk for him. The country is better off and the people are happy. I've heard enough stories from our troops and we have a nephew in Afghanistan as I speak. A relative at Ft Erwin. I am for what we have done and are doing in Iraq.

We are a great nation and a kind nation, but this pushing like Russia is doing to Georgia cannot be allowed.

[Aquila]

Obama is talking peace and diplomacy. That tells me he's good at this poker game. I don't want a President that tells the world our hand with loud bombastic military rhetoric. And enemy like Russia might just say, "Hey, if America can just pre-emptively strike a threat....we can to. We're striking America without warning." And based on Bush's behavior...he set the standard that allows them to be justified in doing so.

Bush ditched several important treaties that gave us much needed political leverage. With the ban on ballistic missles he insinuated that he wanted to have the right to use them in the war on terror. Well....guess what....now they know. And so does the Russians and every other freakin' nation.

If I were President, I'd talk peace, sign treaties, be all diplomatic....but I'd be moving my nuclear subs in top secret... "training drills".

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Aquila

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.

Talk? How do you talk to an ingrained religious ideology? It is their distinct privilege to die for their belief and to kill others in the process. How do you propose we work with that?

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Obama is talking peace and diplomacy. That tells me he's good at this poker game. I don't want a President that tells the world our hand with loud bombastic military rhetoric. And enemy like Russia might just say, "Hey, if America can just pre-emptively strike a threat....we can to. We're striking America without warning." And based on Bush's behavior...he set the standard that allows them to be justified in doing so.

Bush ditched several important treaties that gave us much needed political leverage. With the ban on ballistic missles he insinuated that he wanted to have the right to use them in the war on terror. Well....guess what....now they know. And so does the Russians and every other freakin' nation.

If I were President, I'd talk peace, sign treaties, be all diplomatic....but I'd be moving my nuclear subs in top secret... "training drills".

I would present myself with peace and diplomacy allowing any nation to know that I will use military force as my greatest and last measure. I feel that the world knows this is the Republicans mindset. The Democrats are soft and the world knows it.

I don't feel that I can see that in Obama - the military strength, that is.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Right.


We've used sanctions in many instances. I wasn't specifically speaking of Iraq. Hussein, not Obama (), wouldn't work with us and we stood with other countries against who he was, what he promised and what he did to his people. Enough talk for him. The country is better off and the people are happy. I've heard enough stories from our troops and we have a nephew in Afghanistan as I speak. A relative at Ft Erwin. I am for what we have done and are doing in Iraq.

We are a great nation and a kind nation, but this pushing like Russia is doing to Georgia cannot be allowed.

But from their perspective they're protecting their interests like we did in Iraq. I don't see where we have the moral authority to do anything against Russian on this one. Unless we just push the "do as I say, not as I do" policy as far as it can go before the global community sanctions us.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Talk? How do you talk to an ingrained religious ideology? It is their distinct privilege to die for their belief and to kill others in the process. How do you propose we work with that?

In all honesty, we can't. And we surely can't kill every Muslim on the planet. Our best bet would be to focus on domestic security, our boarders, etc. We can't try to invade every Muslim nation and hope to rid ourselves of Islam.

With my boss we have what is called a "written oral repremand". It shows that we've talked and that he's made expectations clear. It justifies him taking the next step and gives me little room to agrue a case against him. Our talking with them opens the door for us to say, "We've tried ALL diplomatic measures...we now feel justified to use ANY means necessary to preserve our security."

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Aquila

But from their perspective they're protecting their interests like we did in Iraq. I don't see where we have the moral authority to do anything against Russian on this one. Unless we just push the "do as I say, not as I do" policy as far as it can go before the global community sanctions us.

Well, I see your point here. I guess because they are not pushing a Democratic agenda, I am against their move. Iraqi leaders were merciless to their people. I didn't think anything we did to change that was a bad idea in the end.

I am of the same opinion as Bush when he said he made his decision to invade on a principle of the Bible - All men are created to be free.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Aquila

In all honesty, we can't. And we surely can't kill every Muslim on the planet. Our best bet would be to focus on domestic security, our boarders, etc. We can't try to invade every Muslim nation and hope to rid ourselves of Islam.

With my boss we have what is called a "written oral repremand". It shows that we've talked and that he's made expectations clear. It justifies him taking the next step and gives me little room to agrue a case against him. Our talking with them opens the door for us to say, "We've tried ALL diplomatic measures...we now feel justified to use ANY means necessary to preserve our security."

Right, I agree, but I think we talked it out enough with Iraq. JMHO.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I would present myself with peace and diplomacy allowing any nation to know that I will use military force as my greatest and last measure. I feel that the world knows this is the Republicans mindset. The Democrats are soft and the world knows it.

I don't feel that I can see that in Obama - the military strength, that is.

I agree, the Democrats aren't as openly militant as the Republicans. And Obama isn't as militant as McCain. But what do you want to see McCain do? Invade every Muslim country and kill every Muslim? Bro...that's a loosing strategy. We need to get their economies up and interconnected with the global community. That way they're dependent upon peace for their survival. For example, China's economy would tank if we got into a major conflict with them. So would ours. lol

I know you don't believe this...but sometimes the pen is mightier than the sword.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Well, I see your point here. I guess because they are not pushing a Democratic agenda, I am against their move. Iraqi leaders were merciless to their people. I didn't think anything we did to change that was a bad idea in the end.

I am of the same opinion as Bush when he said he made his decision to invade on a principle of the Bible - All men are created to be free.

So...who's next? Iraq isn't the only country like that to it's people. Frankly, a lot of African nations are far worse to their people. Hey...you sound like you're geared up for war without end.