(02/08) Who would you like to see as the next President of the United States?

[chip anderson]

Who said anything about refoming other countries. This is our problem. We need to look out for our interests only. If other countries are friendly and co-operative, we trade with an support them. If they are beligerant we let them destory themselves. If the present a threat to us, we destroy them.

Why look for snakes in the dessert? the only ones we need to worry about are in our garden.

The problems in Mexico need a revolution by Mexicans, not an invasion by the US and pretty much the same thing can be said for the rest of the world.

Global, smoble.

Chip

[Spexvet]

... If they are beligerant we let them destory themselves. If the present a threat to us, we destroy them.

What if the course of action that best serves our interest is a peaceful, non-violent action? Isn't that possible? Did we attack the USSR? Saudi Arabia? Is this the way you behave on a personal level?

Why look for snakes in the dessert? ...

There's an asp in my ice cream!!

[rinselberg]

If the Russians succeeded in Afghanistan, we may not be dealing with Al Quada today..

But what would we be dealing with?

I think that most would say that the political and military fiasco that the Russians experienced in Afghanistan was one of the significant events that helped accelerate the transformation of the USSR into the post-USSR Russia and the other former Soviet states that we see today. The defeat that was inflicted on the Russians in Afghanistan would not have been possible without the covert (and not-so-covert) military assistance to the Afghan rebels, including the U.S.-made Stinger anti-aircraft missiles and all the rest of that program.

Some have said that the U.S. erred in going overboard during the Reagan administration with the aid program: Too much military assistance to the Afghan rebels. But I think that's a hard call to make. When the Russians agreed to withdraw their army, the U.S. cut off the flow of military aid to the rebels.

You can't reverse the flow of time, change one or more factors and then "rerun" history. Some posters are in the habit of pontificating on this forum as if this were reasonable, but it never leads to any sensible conclusions.

[chip anderson]

Spex:
Present a genuine threat to one of my family and you better bet your insurance is paid up. All men are like that.

[Judy Canty]

I wonder how many women are thinking: "Typical male. Big balls. No brains."

At least one...;)

[1968]

Spex:
Present a genuine threat to one of my family and you better bet your insurance is paid up. All men are like that.

Oooops! Sorry, Spex... I thought you were a genuine threat based on all the information I was given.

[chip anderson]

As usual you missed the point. When some power presents a threat to the U.S. do you want a wimp that says: "I'm sorry how have we offended you and what can we do to keep you happy while you grow stronger so you can present more of a threat?"
Or do you want one who makes it very plain as to what will happen if any citizens of the U.S. are damaged?
Do you want one that will appease his opposition on the domestic front and compromise on principals no matter how improtant to keep anyone from being offended?
Do you want a man who will enforce with all the powers given him to preserve the United States, it's citizens and it's Consitution. Including vetoing pork laden legislation even if it's coming to your home state?
Think about what the words: Leader, Commander, Protector mean.
I don't think appeaser is a quality needed in a leadership position. He doesn't answer to the PTA and the School board you know.

Chip

[Judy Canty]

I don't know...some PTA meetings have been pretty ugly and down-right personal!

[For-Life]

As usual you missed the point. When some power presents a threat to the U.S. do you want a wimp that says: "I'm sorry how have we offended you and what can we do to keep you happy while you grow stronger so you can present more of a threat?"
Or do you want one who makes it very plain as to what will happen if any citizens of the U.S. are damaged?
Do you want one that will appease his opposition on the domestic front and compromise on principals no matter how improtant to keep anyone from being offended?
Do you want a man who will enforce with all the powers given him to preserve the United States, it's citizens and it's Consitution. Including vetoing pork laden legislation even if it's coming to your home state?
Think about what the words: Leader, Commander, Protector mean.
I don't think appeaser is a quality needed in a leadership position. He doesn't answer to the PTA and the School board you know.

Chip

There is a difference to standing up to bullies and being a bully.

Winston Churchill, Ghandi, Martin Luther King, and Malcom X all stood up to bullies. Stalin, Hitler, Adolph Hitler, Dubbya and the KKK were bullies.

[Johns]

There is a difference to standing up to bullies and being a bully.

Winston Churchill, Ghandi, Martin Luther King, and Malcom X all stood up to bullies. Stalin, Hitler, Adolph Hitler, Dubbya and the KKK were bullies.

You're forgetting that according to most British schoolchildren, more than half of the people you named never existed.

Just like in the US...because we haven't had an attack in a few year on our soil, people are ready to elect candidates that don't think terrorists exist.
:hammer:

[1968]

As usual you missed the point.

If you can make a point, preferably succinctly, it's much less likely to be missed. It's nothing but empty rhetoric to state that the most important characteristic in a President is having cojones. Speaking of the Constitution, the President is not supposed to take us to war anyway.

[chip anderson]

1968:
You missed again. If the president is strong enough no one will dare concider war against the U.S. much less actually start one. With weak ones, anyone chalenges.
No one kicks Dick Butkus in the shins even today. One reason: No one doubts he would make it a very unpleasant experience.

Chip

[1968]

1968:
You missed again. If the president is strong enough no one will dare concider war against the U.S. much less actually start one. With weak ones, anyone chalenges.

I think it is you who is still missing the point in that you can't prove your assertion that anyone pretending to be a tough SOB is going to do better than anyone else. For example, touched-by-the-hand-of-God Ronald Reagan was supposed to be some badass MFer but 241 Americans were killed in Beruit on his watch.

[Grubendol]

I think it is you who is still missing the point in that you can't prove your assertion that anyone pretending to be a tough SOB is going to do better than anyone else. For example, touched-by-the-hand-of-God Ronald Reagan was supposed to be some badass MFer but 241 Americans were killed in Beruit on his watch.

And he essentially had no response.

[For-Life]

You're forgetting that according to most British schoolchildren, more than half of the people you named never existed.

Just like in the US...because we haven't had an attack in a few year on our soil, people are ready to elect candidates that don't think terrorists exist.
:hammer:

The opposite is Bush who believes everyone is a terrorists. Kind of just like the bullies I named.

The others know that terrorism exists and will use better techniques that the mess Dubbya got us in. Heck, if Gore was elected (or if he wasn't swindled) he probably would have had Osama, never gone into Iraq, the US debt would have been lower, and the economy would have been better.

[Spexvet]

Spex:
Present a genuine threat to one of my family and you better bet your insurance is paid up.

Unless the threat draws first. Then your family will need your insurance.

All men are like that.

Wrong. Foolish, unintelligent, short-sighted, overly-agressive, macho, overcompensating-for-other-shortcoming men are like that. Adult human beings resolve conflict through peaceful means - diplomacy, negotiations, non-violent actions. JFK resolved the Cuba/Soviet issue without war, didn't he? Reagan's bombing Lybia didn't get results, but Clinton's negotiations did. Etc.

As usual you missed the point. When some power presents a threat to the U.S. do you want a wimp that says: "I'm sorry how have we offended you and what can we do to keep you happy while you grow stronger so you can present more of a threat?"
Or do you want one who makes it very plain as to what will happen if any citizens of the U.S. are damaged?
Do you want one that will appease his opposition on the domestic front and compromise on principals no matter how improtant to keep anyone from being offended?
Do you want a man who will enforce with all the powers given him to preserve the United States, it's citizens and it's Consitution. Including vetoing pork laden legislation even if it's coming to your home state?
Think about what the words: Leader, Commander, Protector mean.
I don't think appeaser is a quality needed in a leadership position. He doesn't answer to the PTA and the School board you know.

Chip

If someone attacks us,(and Iraq did not attack us) we have every right to defend ourselves with force. What an intelligent person does is to prevent an attack. There's some room between

... When some power presents a threat to the U.S. do you want a wimp that says: "I'm sorry how have we offended you and what can we do to keep you happy while you grow stronger so you can present more of a threat?"
...

and

...
Or do you want one who makes it very plain as to what will happen if any citizens of the U.S. are damaged?
...

Economic sanctions and political pressure are techniques that can be used to prevent killing human beings - OURS and theirs.

[Pete Hanlin]

Too bad we can't have that "truth-o-meter" thing active for our posts...

Bash away at the current administration- its neither as bad as its detractors argue, nor as good as its dwindling number of supporters claim (I'm neither at this point). At the end of the day, he's a two-term President, so someone must have approved of the way he carried out his job (oh yeah, that's right- the GOP rigged both elections).

It looks to come down to McCain/Huckabee vs. Clinton/Obama (or possibly a Clinton/Edwards). The only thing left to see is if Sen. Clinton can seperate herself far enough in the delegate count to win the nomination relatively soon (to give her and Sen. Obama time to "make up" and run as partners).

My guess is McCain/Huckabee wins vs. a Clinton/Edwards ticket- and would probably lose vs. a Clinton/Obama ticket. The reason, once again, is the South. I think a Clinton/Obama ticket takes enough of the South, and would naturally hold serve in NY and California- that's the formula for a win by the Democratic Party.

Either way, I'm not really sure I could bring myself to vote in a choice between these two (cause I'm actually unsure which would be worse). If its the former match-up, I'll probably hold my nose and go vote against Clinton. Otherwise, at this point, it looks like I'll skip voting for the first time (unless there's some local referendum on which to vote).

As for what makes a President presidential... I don't think its cajones, I think its leadership. We've had several decent leaders in recent administrations (Reagan & Clinton, and- on foreign policy Bush I) but both Reagan and Clinton were extremely polarizing. We need another leader who can find a way to communicate a vision that everyone can at least tolerate- if not embrace. Of course, that's the trick- because leading means moving in a direction- and if your direction isn't my own I'm likely to respond negatively to your leadership.

Of everyone still in this race, I think Sen. Obama has the best chance of being the kind of leader this country needs. He is a great communicator, has little baggage, and I'd be willing to listen to his vision (even though I know it differs from my own).

Someday soon, this country has to find a solution to our immigration, fiscal, foreign, and entitlement issues. I don't think either party is capable of drumming up enough support behind whatever solution they have in mind (not sure either party truly has a solution). Someone needs to step up and say- "This is the way to go... Its not exactly what anyone wants, but its the best solution and its the one everyone needs to get behind it." AND, they need to say it in a way that resonates with enough of the moderate population so the fringe conservative and liberal movements in this country can't stop it with their distortions and spin.

[chip anderson]

JFK resolved the Cuban Missle crisis only when he convinced Kruschev he was ready and willing to go to war. Had he a reputation for cajonies he would never have had missles in Cuba in the first place.
Kruschev only put them there after observing JFK's wimpy prosecution of the Viet Nam war.

Also I do seem to remember that Kadafi had no further intentions against the US after being bombed and having his son killed.

Chip

[chip anderson]

I think the current administration while lacking many things will stack up much higher than a McCain, or a Hillary, or an Obama, or Huckabee administration after all is said and done.

Chip

[rinselberg]

The opposite is Bush (43) who believes everyone is a terrorists. Kind of like the bullies I named [starting with Stalin...]. The others know that terrorism exists and will use better techniques [than] the mess Dubbya got us in. Heck, if Gore was elected (or if he wasn't swindled) he probably would have had Osama, never gone into Iraq, the US debt would have been lower and the economy would have been better.

My crystal ball reveals a different future: Under President Al Gore, there are (still) about 90,000 U.S soldiers waiting on the sidelines in Kuwait. Saddam (or one of the Saddam Juniors or another Saddam protege) in charge of Iraq. Iraq's Baathist regime, no longer encumbered by U.N. economic sanctions or weapons inspections, pursuing a revitalized WMD program and longer range missiles... no longer encumbered by the No Fly Zones that once limited the regime's power in the northern and southern regions of the country: The U.S. gave that up after the first Iraqi shoot down of a U.S. patrol aircraft. The 90,000 or so U.S. forces in Kuwait, inviting targets for a "test" (by Saddam et al) of the revitalized Iraqi WMD program.

Osama bin Laden still on the lam, in jail or confirmed dead; but al-Qaida's new leadership emboldened by the continuing decline of U.S. influence on the international stage. The U.S. "dissed" by Putin's increasingly autocratic Russia, along with China and France: The new "Big Three" that combined to water down the U.N. economic sanctions and weapons inspections until the U.S. decided to pull out of that game altogether. Russia, China and France enjoying their revitalized and highly profitable trade with Saddam and/or his successors. Dual-use materials and black market weapons in exchange for Iraqi oil or oil-derived currency.

The 90,000 U.S. forces in Kuwait, no longer there to back up U.N. weapons inspections: The mission has reverted to deterring Iraq from using its ever-growing army against Kuwait (again) or Saudi Arabia in a new "oil grab". Iran doing whatever it can to exploit the tension at the expense of the U.S., Lebanon, Israel and the Palestinians.

President Gore, seeing only more trouble ahead, and an ever growing threat to the security of U.S. oil imports from the Middle East, quietly planning the U.S. war against Iraq. The war that was always there, one way or the other; but the war that is now fast approaching on the horizon of Gore's possible second term as president.

The Baathist regime in Iraq is busy also: They've had time to think of some great new ideas to convert thousands of more or less "ordinary" Iraqis into pawns in a game they've played before (1991): Taking the initial brunt of a U.S. military attack and then doing their utmost to manipulate world opinion, confident that they can soak up a certain amount of damage to Iraqi lives and infrastructure, yet come out ahead: The next U.S.-Iraqi stalemate; Iraq's power as regional hoodlum enhanced once again.



For more ...

[For-Life]

But my crystal ball reveals a different future: Under President Al Gore, there are (still) about 90,000 U.S soldiers waiting on the sidelines in Kuwait. Saddam (or one of the Saddam Juniors or some Saddam protege) in charge of Iraq. Iraq's Baathist regime, no longer encumbered by U.N. economic sanctions or weapons inspections, pursuing a revitalized WMD program and longer range missiles... no longer encumbered by the No Fly Zones that once limited the regime's power in the northern and southern regions of the country: The U.S. gave that up after the first Iraqi shoot down of a U.S. patrol aircraft. The 90,000 or so U.S. forces in Kuwait, inviting targets for a "test" (by Saddam et al) of the revitalized Iraqi WMD program.

Osama bin Laden still on the lam, in jail or confirmed dead; but al-Qaida's new leadership emboldened by the continuing decline of U.S. influence on the international stage. The U.S. "dissed" by Putin's increasingly autocratic Russia, along with China and France: The new "Big Three" that combined to water down the U.N. economic sanctions and weapons inspections until the U.S. decided to pull out of that game altogether. Russia, China and France enjoying their revitalized and highly profitable trade with Saddam and/or his successors. Dual-use materials and black market weapons in exchange for Iraqi oil or oil-derived currency.

The 90,000 U.S. forces in Kuwait, no longer there to back up U.N. weapons inspections: The mission has reverted to deterring Iraq from using its ever-growing army against Kuwait (again) or Saudi Arabia in a new "oil grab". Iran doing whatever it can to exploit the tension at the expense of the U.S., Lebanon, Israel and the Palestinians.

President Gore, seeing only more trouble ahead, and an ever growing threat to the security of U.S. oil imports from the Middle East, quietly planning the U.S. war against Iraq. The war that was always there, one way or the other; but the war that is now fast approaching on the horizon of Gore's possible second term as president.

The Baathist regime in Iraq is busy also: They've had time to think of some great new ideas to convert thousands of more or less "ordinary" Iraqis into pawns in a game they've played before (1991): Taking the initial brunt of a U.S. military attack and then doing their utmost to manipulate world opinion, confident that they can soak up a certain amount of damage to Iraqi lives and infrastructure, yet come out ahead: The next U.S.-Iraqi stalemate; Iraq's power as regional hoodlum enhanced once again.

Not that I'm looking for more arguments and counterarguments on the forum. It's just that, having gained access to the forum, I've become a little addicted (perhaps) to letting out the "inner berg"..

The Republicans have sold you well.

[chip anderson]

If you believe everything can be settled by diplomacy, ask the Brit's about Nevil Chamberlain. Sure worked well for them.

Don't you people study history at all?

Chip

[For-Life]

If you believe everything can be settled by diplomacy, ask the Brit's about Nevil Chamberlain. Sure worked well for them.

Don't you people study history at all?

Chip

A lot more than just war. Lester B Person for one.

Again, it is not just about diplomacy. It is about action when needed. It is also not about just causing action.

[Grubendol]

It’s not a debate about whether or not everything can be settled with diplomacy, the debate is whether or not diplomacy is even attempted.

Inspectors were on the ground in Iraq and they were pulled out because of the imminent threat of bombing by the US….all the while we are making the very public argument that we won’t bomb as long as they let the inspectors “on the ground”

Declaring nations enemies before even talking to them is just begging for escalation.

Have you not heard the axiom, “you catch more flies with honey”

How did we win the Cold War? Not by the actions of Reagan but by the continuous building of new allies by working diplomatically with them. Germany and Japan were turned into allies after WWII not by subjugating them, but by using the Marshall Plan. Providing moneys to allow them to build their own nations back up from the rubble. That is how wars are won.

[chip anderson]

We won the cold war by spending so much money on defense that the Soviet Union could no longer keep up in the arms race.
Courtesy of Ronald Reagan and the Pope, no other influences involved.

What threat do you really think the Soviet Union felt from Germany and Japan.

Chip