Trying to resist the political arguments but....

[GoldMember]

I've been lurking around the political threads and been entertained. However, not enough to be drawn into the debate. Having said that, and sorry if this has already been posted here, I think this statement by Obama regarding his stance and approach to our military defenses and what he intends to do, if elected, is worth a watch.


We're going to defend our citizens by giving up defense weaponry R&D? Run away from Iraq when we're on the homestretch? Give up development of orbital missile defense systems? Defensive ICBM's (think S. Ossetia and the Russians)? Nuclear weapons? He's going to negotiate a nuke-free world......with Iran? N. Korea? Putin? What about those pesky terrorists and dirty bombs? Is he going to negotiate with Bin Laden (he doesn't say that but, if you're going to negotiate a nuke-free world, you have to)?

Frankly, it scares me a bit as I don't really know how he realistically thinks he can pull off all he says. More power to him if he can but, I think it's unrealistic to believe we can successfully negotiate with those he thinks he can and have faith that the negotiations would be held by those who would love to harm us. Anyway, I'll be interested in reading your feedback.

7o84PE871BE

[TWGIO Alias]

BREAKING NEWS: I DIDN'T READ WHAT YOU WROTE

[GoldMember]

More breaking news: Nobody cares what an alias says.

[tarkman1]

Put your money where you mouth is and tell me why you fear conducting talks with the parties you mentioned. I don't agree that shutting out everyone is wise.

In the US vs The World, the US will lose. Beware the Russian Bear and the Chinese Tiger along with the allies they build while rebuke the rest of the world. They are what we really need to be worrying about in the long run.

[PNWbrit]

Run away from Iraq when we're on the homestretch?

There's no homestretch for what we started there.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d9/Möbius_strip.jpg/250px-Möbius_strip.jpg

[72Twenty]

I BOUGHT PONTOONS!!!!!

[Buster Highmen]

There's no homestretch for what we started there.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d9/Möbius_strip.jpg/250px-Möbius_strip.jpg

There is one, it's just twice as long as one would think.

What's interesting now is the Georgia situation. While the Georgians weren't thinking to clearly when they launched that initiative, the U.S. is spread to thin to do anything about it. And Putin knows that.

In my opinion, foreign relations have been bungled all the way from Iraq, Iran, Pakistan and Korea through diplomacy with supposed Allies.
I don't consider the American lives spent in Iraq to have been worth the despots deposition.
Our position in Iraq has only given more credence to the Iranian mullahs and Ahmadinejad.
Israel needs to be reigned in.

And having worked in the defense industry, I assure you that there's a tremendous amount of waste that could be trimmed.

The pugilist approach has put us in the current position with regard to foreign relations. While it's appropriate for some scenarios, I doubt McCain will have much else to offer.

I'm a lot more concerned with the debt and economic policies.

[GoldMember]

Put your money where you mouth is and tell me why you fear conducting talks with the parties you mentioned. I don't agree that shutting out everyone is wise.

I'm not putting money anywhere; just my vote. If you're going to talk with those who would like to destroy us, it's generally best to negotiate from a position of strength, not from a point of weakened resolve. In turn, I agree that we shouldn't shut everyone out. But to weaken our ability to defend ourselves and our national interests also weakens our negotiating capabilities.


In the US vs The World, the US will lose. Beware the Russian Bear and the Chinese Tiger along with the allies they build while rebuke the rest of the world. They are what we really need to be worrying about in the long run.

I'm not suggesting we take on "the world" and China and Russia are two entities we need to negotiate with in a manner that allows us all to develop and improve our societies; win-win-win. It's the crackpots of the world that we need to hold our position of strength over. Aside from what I just wrote, how much do we really think we can trust those we negotiate with? I have my concerns.

[GoldMember]

Buster, I agree on concerns over the spiraling debt and economy but the federal government's number one priority, IMHO, needs to be national defense and Obama's stated position on that is what concerns me more.

[P_McPoser]

Our economy matter not if it's swallowed up by China or Russia. Our defense is an important thing. What scares me about negotiating a nuclear-weapon-free world, is that we would have to put our money where our mouth was and be the first to do it. That makes me uneasy.

[Buster Highmen]

Buster, I agree on concerns over the spiraling debt and economy but the federal government's number one priority, IMHO, needs to be national defense and Obama's stated position on that is what concerns me more.
It depends on how you hear it.

I'm hearing about cutting wasteful military spending.

It also depends on how you define Defense.

If it's a purely pugilist position, then yup, Obama ain't your guy.

But if you define Defense as better foreign relations, maybe he has something to say.

Besides, Iraq is driving us deeply into debt, so far that we won't be able to financially marshall forces if need be, so the economy is part of the Defense picture. Consider the Georgian situation, let alone Korea: we're so strapped with Iraq that we can't effectly address either situation.

[Hutch]

Seems appropriate to consider Ike's prescient words here:

qdrGKwkmxAU

[lemon boy]

Our economy matter not if it's swallowed up by China or Russia. Our defense is an important thing. What scares me about negotiating a nuclear-weapon-free world, is that we would have to put our money where our mouth was and be the first to do it. That makes me uneasy.

Dude, GMAFB.

You're constructing a straw man here. You've chosen process that is simply not reality w/r/t how any even semi-rational plan would proceed (or could even be allowed to proceed). Sorry, that is just the stuff of fantasy.

Goldmember, please read obama's plan for defense and report back.

[GoldMember]

Buster, it also depends on what's defined as military wasteful spending. In Obama's remarks, it sounds like he views any money spent on progressing our defense systems may be wasteful. The same for keeping our nuclear defenses in shape. As PMcPoser mentioned, and Obama states, leading the way to a nuke-free world starts with our own disarmament and that makes me uneasy too.

As for waste, there are many areas of government waste that can be attacked. As a matter of comparison as it relates to our overall economy, the following chart indicates that the growth in military spending has been less than the growth of our overall economy with the 'military-industrial complex' becoming a lesser segment of our being, not more as Eisenhower warned against. I'm all for reducing waste but again, it depends on what's defined as waste.

Defense spending as % of GDP. (I apologize for the source of this; Heritage Foundation but it was the best historical reference I came across when I Googled):



http://www.heritage.org/research/features/BudgetChartBook/images/fed-rev-spend-2008-boc-S7-Despite-War-Costs-Defense.gif

[P_McPoser]

Dude, GMAFB.

You're constructing a straw man here. You've chosen process that is simply not reality w/r/t how any even semi-rational plan would proceed (or could even be allowed to proceed). Sorry, that is just the stuff of fantasy.

Goldmember, please read obama's plan for defense and report back.

Really? You think that there wouldn't be a long stale mate of "you first," "no, you first?!" The fact is, a non-nuclear weapon world is completely irrational to begin with. There is always going to be one rogue state who doesn't want to play.

edit: I feel safer with all those warheads sitting in silos, anyways. The government is too inept to try to move them all somewhere to be disposed.

[Buster Highmen]

Buster, it also depends on what's defined as military wasteful spending. In Obama's remarks, it sounds like he views any money spent on progressing our defense systems may be wasteful. The same for keeping our nuclear defenses in shape. As PMcPoser mentioned, and Obama states, leading the way to a nuke-free world starts with our own disarmament and that makes me uneasy too.

Is it possible your hearing more than what he is saying? Or that I'm hearing what I want to hear?

Both, probably.



As for waste, there are many areas of government waste that can be attacked. As a matter of comparison as it relates to our overall economy, the following chart indicates that the growth in military spending has been less than the growth of our overall economy with the 'military-industrial complex' becoming a lesser segment of our being, not more as Eisenhower warned against. I'm all for reducing waste but again, it depends on what's defined as waste.

Defense spending as % of GDP. (I apologize for the source of this; Heritage Foundation but it was the best historical reference I came across when I Googled):



http://www.heritage.org/research/features/BudgetChartBook/images/fed-rev-spend-2008-boc-S7-Despite-War-Costs-Defense.gif

The country is massively in debt. It's not going to be easy to spend our way out of it. And Iraq is costing us a tremendous amount. I think that's his focus.

[GoldMember]

Is it possible your hearing more than what he is saying? Or that I'm hearing what I want to hear?

Both, probably.


The country is massively in debt. It's not going to be easy to spend our way out of it. And Iraq is costing us a tremendous amount. I think that's his focus.

On your first point, I'll agree, or at least admit to the possibility.

On the second, the Iraq war is one that, retrospectively was tenuous at best when it was first launched and has become a very unpopular situation and one that will mark Bush's legacy. I was against this in the first place as I don't feel we should ever attack unless attacked and we hadn't been attacked by Saddam. Even though he was a very bad person with a very bad track record, he hadn't attacked the U.S. and we should have stayed out. Our attack authorization, based on faulty intelligence, wasn't justifiable even if the intelligence had proved to be true. That's at least my personal opinion.

I think Bush's approval numbers clearly demonstrate that many/most republicans agree with democrats on the failure of his terms. What that says, in essence, is that republicans don't want anymore of Bush's policies regarding Iraq and that they want the party to go a different direction. If McCain, as Obama's campaign continuously claims, is four more years of Bush, McCain will lose this election in a landslide. However, I don't think that's what we'll see in the coming weeks.

Having said all that, once we were in Iraq, we were committed to try and stabilize the situation there. With considerable progress and a now proposed withdrawal by 2010, the vast majority of the expense is money that's now gone (or at least committed) and there's not a lot of cost to be reduced going forward. So, using the Iraq withdrawal as a proposed means of cutting defense costs is a bit of a stretch since we're already on that track as the situation winds down.

With that, my concern isn't so much about us immediately pulling out of Iraq. I don't think that happens regardless of who gets in and believe that a timeline worked out with Iraq will be followed by us. My concerns over Obama's statements relate more to what I view to be an overestimated ability on his part to sit down and negotiate his defense plans with enemy states whose words can't be trusted. A nuke-free world? Look at Pakistan and India and tell me how we get there. They're both considered allies to us but enemies of each other. Does Obama think either of them are ready to sit down and rid themselves of their arsenals? Good luck on that. Iran? N. Korea? I don't trust them regardless what fluff they throw at us. I like when we carry a position of strength into negotiations. Negotiate? Yes. Exercise diplomacy? Absolutely. But without a strong backup position, it's likely meaningless. I could be wrong and truly wish I am but I think it's a very risky business to make such claims prior to actually having had any of the conversations.

[Bullet]

We hear what we want to hear. I heard - end wasteful spending, end unnecessary spending, end hidden spending, focus defense spending to protect American people instead of paying to special interest groups, strive for a saver world.

His nuclear vision is in line with Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagen, G.H.W.Bush, and Bill Clinton dating back to 1969. Nothing scary about it. - SALT, SALT II, then START, START II, and START III.

We must not forget the Bush/Rumsfeld justification for the Iraq war and how it will be funded:

“Iraq has oil,” Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told Fortune magazine in 2002, discussing the potential cost of an Iraq invasion and how it would be met. “They have financial resources.” Yet we have not tapped into those resources. While we spend billions at the expense of alternative energy research, education, and economic growth, Iraq has a surplus and is contributing nothing I've seen accounted for.

[philippeR]

More and more breakin news (http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/showthread.php?t=129734)!

[Dexter Rutecki]

Defense spending as % of GDP. (I apologize for the source of this; Heritage Foundation but it was the best historical reference I came across when I Googled):



http://www.heritage.org/research/features/BudgetChartBook/images/fed-rev-spend-2008-boc-S7-Despite-War-Costs-Defense.gif

I was a bit suspicious of how that could be right, given the war expenditures, and wondered if those numbers only reflected the money in the defense budget--which generally doesn't reflect war costs that are included in supplementary spending.
I believe the above graph does NOT account for the 150-200 billion in supplemental costs; if it did include those costs we would be somewhere around 7% of GDP.

Source:
David Isenberg, Budgeting for Empire: The effect of Iraq and Afghanistan on Military Forces, Budgets and Plans

edit: just checked the above, looks like the 4% GDP figures leave out the bulk of the war costs. Another source: Winslow T. Wheeler, Th e 2007 Defense Budget
May Not Be What You Th ink (Washington,
D.C.: Center for Defense Information, Straus
Military Reform Project, October 5, 2006).

[GoldMember]

More and more breakin news (http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/showthread.php?t=129734)!

Heh. Yeah, I meant to start this thread with the obligatory apology if it had been posted already. Sorry for the repeat.

[GoldMember]

I was a bit suspicious of how that could be right, given the war expenditures, and wondered if those numbers only reflected the money in the defense budget--which generally doesn't reflect war costs that are included in supplementary spending.
I believe the above graph does NOT account for the 150-200 billion in supplemental costs; if it did include those costs we would be somewhere around 7% of GDP.

Source:
David Isenberg, Budgeting for Empire: The effect of Iraq and Afghanistan on Military Forces, Budgets and Plans

I researched your point and, you're right, it doesn't include the supplemental spending bills. However, when looking at this chart, it draws a good comparison to the spending of past times; specifically in the arms build-up surrounding the Cold War. Much of the 'cost cutting' (as defined by the government: Not increasing spending as fast as the resources would allow) that Obama claims he will initiate is apparently already in place as the % of GDP has dropped over the past several years.

One distraction on this is the size of the GDP. We're spending lots of dollars but as a portion of GDP, it's less so gives the impression that real reductions have occurred while the reality is the increase in size of the GDP. Obviously, that level of reduction isn't the case and there's room for vast improvements. I just don't personally want to see the reductions come at the cost of our defense security.

[Dexter Rutecki]

I agree with you, but throwing money away in Iraq (where we only created more of a threat than existed before) is no way to go. If we spent one quarter of the war money on a better, larger foreign service I bet we'd be safer than if we spent twice the money in Iraq (on war).

[GoldMember]

As I said above, I am no fan of the war in Iraq and never have been. However, I disagree that's it's now a bigger threat than before. I think once we're out, our relationship with the Iraqi's will be much better than when Saddam was in. As for the money spent there, it's mostly gone now anyway with a stated intent from both sides to be out by 2010. Not much is going to change there at this point and I don't expect either candidate to take much of a different stand than the current direction. It's not the meat of the concern for me at this point; water over the dam. I have greater concerns about assuring we stay on top with the most sophisticated weapons and intelligence systems we can develop and that we maintain a position of strength. With the comments in the video I posted, Obama sounds like he wants to curtail much of those efforts which, in my opinion, weakens a lot of what our diplomatic efforts might otherwise accomplish. As I noted before, you always want to negotiate from a position of strength.

[PNWbrit]

a stated intent from both sides to be out by 2010.

Both sides?

[lemon boy]

Both sides?

Indeed, Barack Obama and George Bush have agreed.

McCain still sez 2110 :fm:

[Blurred]

Both sides?

You didn't hear? The Iraqis are moving to the West Bank.

[Blurred]

Indeed, Barack Obama and George Bush have agreed.

McCain still sez 2110 :fm:

And Al Gore invented the internet. :rolleyes2

C'mon LB, your<- 're smarter than that.

McCain was just stating the same scenario which is the reason we still have troops all over the world. Don't be a douche.

[lemon boy]

And Al Gore invented the internet. :rolleyes2

C'mon LB, your<- 're smarter than that.

McCain was just stating the same scenario which is the reason we still have troops all over the world. Don't be a douche.

sorry I didn't realize that you were taking this election cycle so seriously that you've lost the ability to laugh at what is obviously a nothing more than a joke.

In the future I will try to be more sensitive to your needs.

Do you need smilies? ---> :p: :D

[Blurred]

sorry I didn't realize that you were taking this election cycle so seriously that you've lost the ability to laugh at what is obviously a nothing more than a joke.

In the future I will try to be more sensitive to your needs.

Do you need smilies? ---> :p: :D

If you want somebody to know your post is an intentional attempt at comedy, try and add some funny. :fm:

[GoldMember]

Both sides?

While not officially finalized as there are obviously details to work through but yes, I think it's clear that there will be a timeline to get out, regardless of who's elected. Even Bush was relenting his former hardline position of no timeline and indicated he would be accepting (resigning to?) a timeline toward the end of 2011. I think it's pretty clear that whoever is elected will be under serious pressure to put together the deal to get out. McCain's holding out the caveat of military commanders giving the green light, which I think will happen, barring any further, unforeseen insurgency uprisings.

WASHINGTON, July 29 (Xinhua) -- For the first time, U.S. Republican presidential hopeful John McCain left the door open on the issue of whether the country should set a timetable to withdraw troops from Iraq.

In an interview with CNN broadcast Tuesday, the Arizona senator said he could support a 16-month timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq, which, is the central theme of Barack Obama, his Democratic rival, on Iraq policy.
The difference, is that McCain said he would only do so if military chiefs deemed the "conditions on the ground" safe enough. For Obama, it is unconditional.
The remarks was a drastic turn of McCain's policy tone on Iraq. He had been resisting the timetable for a long time.
But he still insisted that the invasion of Iraq in 2003 is still a right decision in retrospect. "The fact that Saddam Hussein was bent on acquiring weapons of mass destruction. ... I think we did the right thing," said McCain.

[PNWbrit]

But he still insisted that the invasion of Iraq in 2003 is still a right decision in retrospect.

So explain why I should trust his current (this weeks) views on ending the war are worth a damn thing?

In reality the sudden repub. acceptance of time lines or withdrawal is because their previous intransigent stance on the matter was going to loose them the election.

Perhaps it explains Palin's appearance on the ticket. McCain heard she's a big promoter of withdrawal policies :fmicon:

[stupendous man]

Meh.

I agree with the last post, except that Obama has already said he's not unconditional, he's also a conditions on the ground. except he's not gonna fire anyone who says what he doesn't want to hear. If bush had listened and not fired, the whole war would have gone differently.

But all this says to me that Iraq is a red herring. The issue of difference is going to be the Supreme Court. One more vote for the righties and we are into some dark days ahead.

[Adolf Allerbush]

McCain was just stating the same scenario which is the reason we still have troops all over the world. Don't be a douche.

This reminds me that we don't have troops in Vietnam...which then made me think about how Palin said in her speach last night that McCain has a proven track record of always coming out on top with regard to military issues...I think she was talking about how he supported the troop surge in Iraq....regardless, it's pretty funny that she mention this because he's pretty much failed at all things military....the war he fought in was not a victory (see Vietnam)...He crashed five planes...and he was a shitty enough pilot and strategist at flying that he got shot down in Vietnam...I don't think any of that is funny though...I think it's really sad that there are a lot of people out there that applaud him for being a great military man...when all he did was get captured and tortured. I'll give him credit for being a tough sumbitch and surviving through that time...but other than that his military exploits were complete failures.

[Pow4Brains]

Perhaps it explains Palin's appearance on the ticket. McCain heard she's a big promoter of withdrawal policies :fmicon:

Teh funny.

[GoldMember]

So explain why I should trust his current (this weeks) views on ending the war are worth a damn thing?

In reality the sudden repub. acceptance of time lines or withdrawal is because their previous intransigent stance on the matter was going to loose them the election.

Not to be picky....but...it's lose, not loose.

I believe McCain will accept a timeline for two reasons: He's a straightshooter who hasn't demonstrated lying or obfuscation as his tendencies and, we're actually doing much better in Iraq and the end's achievable. His commanders are already reporting significant progress and that the situation is coming much closer to control. We've begun handing over control to Iraqi forces in areas that were previously precarious so, it would seem that the end is within sight. With that, I believe he's in a position where he could make a cautious public statement regarding a potential withdrawal timeline.


Perhaps it explains Palin's appearance on the ticket. McCain heard she's a big promoter of withdrawal policies :fmicon:

She may be a big promoter of withdrawal policies but she's not very good at it. Shit, she's got five kids, ferchissakes! :eek:

[Adolf Allerbush]

we're actually doing much better in Iraq and the end's achievable...

did you ever consider that just maybe Al Qaeda would rather have a republican war mongerer as US President because it furthers their cause? And maybe, just maybe that has something to do with the decrease in violence there? I'm not saying that is 100% for sure the case...but somebody like McCain will only strengthen their recruiting efforts and help to inspire more to their cause...Obama as POTUS hurts their cause...probably makes people internationally think that we're not retards and dumbfucks...something to think about.

[GoldMember]

did you ever consider that just maybe Al Qaeda would rather have a republican war mongerer as US President because it furthers their cause? And maybe, just maybe that has something to do with the decrease in violence there? I'm not saying that is 100% for sure the case...but somebody like McCain will only strengthen their recruiting efforts and help to inspire more to their cause...Obama as POTUS hurts their cause...probably makes people internationally think that we're not retards and dumbfucks...something to think about.

You mean further their cause because we have a republican president? You mean like when Bill Clinton (democrat, in case you missed it) was president and they tried to blow up the WTC in 1993? Or how about the USS Cole? Kenyan and Tanzanian embassies? They don't care who's president so long as we continue our 'infidel' lifestyles. What you're suggesting is that they'd rather have someone come in who's bent on killing more of them in order to further their cause and recruit even more to it. I don't quite get that logic, sorry but I think you're really reaching.

[Adolf Allerbush]

You mean further their cause because we have a republican president? You mean like when Bill Clinton (democrat, in case you missed it) was president and they tried to blow up the WTC in 1993? Or how about the USS Cole? Kenyan and Tanzanian embassies? They don't care who's president so long as we continue our 'infidel' lifestyles. What you're suggesting is that they'd rather have someone come in who's bent on killing more of them in order to further their cause and recruit even more to it. I don't quite get that logic, sorry but I think you're really reaching.

I see what you're saying...and yes I'm reaching. But I think Al Qaeda is stronger than its ever been...this with all the anti-terrorism efforts that Bush has been doing so stellar at and that McCain has already indicated he has every desire to continue. That's what I'm getting at. You're right about the terrorism that happened under Clinton...I think terrorism is the type of thing that can never be irradicated...but the GWB administration has been successful in making Al Qaeda stronger all the while never capturing the faceplate of terrorism for Al Qaeda (Bin Laden).

man, it just seems like the current approach and perpetuation of that by electing more republicans isn't the answer. So, I guess what I mean is that I disagree that I think anything will change with McCain in power...because he's already indicated he good with the status quo from that perspective. So I question your logic. I don't know, maybe you can change my mind on that though. You seem to be an intelligent person...I'd like to hear what you to say.

[Tippster]

I honestly don't think Al Qaeda gives a fuck... well, other than Obama promising to move focus from Iraq back to Afghanistan/Pakistan and hunting down bin Laden.

[Powow]

You mean further their cause because we have a republican president? You mean like when Bill Clinton (democrat, in case you missed it) was president and they tried to blow up the WTC in 1993? Or how about the USS Cole? Kenyan and Tanzanian embassies? They don't care who's president so long as we continue our 'infidel' lifestyles. What you're suggesting is that they'd rather have someone come in who's bent on killing more of them in order to further their cause and recruit even more to it. I don't quite get that logic, sorry but I think you're really reaching.
They hate our freedom!!!

Damn, I haven't heard that one for a few years at least.

[Cliff Huckable]

Run away from Iraq when we're on the homestretch?



You have to know where the end is before you can claim to be on the homestretch.

[GoldMember]

I see what you're saying...and yes I'm reaching. But I think Al Qaeda is stronger than its ever been...this with all the anti-terrorism efforts that Bush has been doing so stellar at and that McCain has already indicated he has every desire to continue. That's what I'm getting at. You're right about the terrorism that happened under Clinton...I think terrorism is the type of thing that can never be irradicated...but the GWB administration has been successful in making Al Qaeda stronger all the while never capturing the faceplate of terrorism for Al Qaeda (Bin Laden).

man, it just seems like the current approach and perpetuation of that by electing more republicans isn't the answer. So, I guess what I mean is that I disagree that I think anything will change with McCain in power...because he's already indicated he good with the status quo from that perspective. So I question your logic. I don't know, maybe you can change my mind on that though. You seem to be an intelligent person...I'd like to hear what you to say.

First, if AQ is stronger and more of a threat than ever, why hasn't there been any more attacks against us on our soil? Surely they would have taken their shots if they had strength and opportunity, not to mention AQ in Iraq has largely withdrawn, again transferring the face of the war against AQ to Afghanistan where it was launched following 9/11. Are they eradicated? Obviously not but I don't believe they're stronger either. I think we've gained against terror but it's a long way from over. As for OBL, has he even surfaced in any form recently? I don't think he's put out any videos or other messages for quite a while. Whatever he's doing, it can't be much of an existence, hardly a situation someone who's winning the fight would likely be in.

I agree that we will likely never be in a world without terrorism in the future, unfortunately. However, that brand of terrorism isn't the only potential threat we face going forward. As we saw in Georgia/S. Ossetia, the Russians can still get pretty frisky and Iran and N. Korea still stand in defiance of the international community regarding their pursuit of nuclear weapons, not to mention the ongoing dispute between two other nuclear powers, India and Pakistan. Add to that the capability of Israel and the ongoing disputes over the Palestinians and there's still plenty of concerns to be had. Just look south to Venezuela for another potential enemy. Hugo Chavez would love nothing more than to see us crippled militarily.

Lastly, intelligent? Ha! If I was smarter, I likely wouldn't have gotten into this discussion! :eek:

[GoldMember]

You have to know where the end is before you can claim to be on the homestretch.

It's prognosticating on my part but I think the end is likely in sight in most of the player's minds. And I think it's going to be targeted as sometime in 2010, based on what has been reported. McCain and Obama aren't that far apart anymore as to their view of the endgame as both have given a little from their prior statements regarding a defined timeline. Maliki has been pretty clear on his target and that's where 2010 comes in and it seems both McCain and Obama are essentially coming into line on that target.

As to Tipps' point, I agree. I think we'll refocus our efforts back to Afghanistan and find out which of the caves OBL's hanging out in and get after it there. This ain't over but the Afghan front with the fight directly targeted at AQ is much more palatable to the American public than being stretched over both fronts, especially in a dubious war against the former Saddam regime.

[Adolf Allerbush]

Lastly, intelligent? Ha! If I was smarter, I likely wouldn't have gotten into this discussion! :eek:

Now isn't that the truth.

interesting points though...I gotta think about this a bit.

[TJ.Brk]

I've been lurking around the political threads and been entertained. However, not enough to be drawn into the debate. Having said that, and sorry if this has already been posted here, I think this statement by Obama regarding his stance and approach to our military defenses and what he intends to do, if elected, is worth a watch.


We're going to defend our citizens by giving up defense weaponry R&D? Run away from Iraq when we're on the homestretch? Give up development of orbital missile defense systems? Defensive ICBM's (think S. Ossetia and the Russians)? Nuclear weapons? He's going to negotiate a nuke-free world......with Iran? N. Korea? Putin? What about those pesky terrorists and dirty bombs? Is he going to negotiate with Bin Laden (he doesn't say that but, if you're going to negotiate a nuke-free world, you have to)?

Frankly, it scares me a bit as I don't really know how he realistically thinks he can pull off all he says. More power to him if he can but, I think it's unrealistic to believe we can successfully negotiate with those he thinks he can and have faith that the negotiations would be held by those who would love to harm us. Anyway, I'll be interested in reading your feedback.

7o84PE871BE

news flash for you here. Ever here of this

SALT
SALT II
START
START II

All were nuke treaties negotiated and signed by Republican presidents.

[GoldMember]

news flash for you here. Ever here of this

SALT
SALT II
START
START II

All were nuke treaties negotiated and signed by Republican presidents.

And your point?

edit: These were between us and the USSR. No Iran. No North Korea. No China, or anyone else. I don't understand what you're getting at.

[Summit]

A truly nuclear free world is an impossibility. Most arms controls treaties were to limit prohibitively expensive parts of the arm race, to maintain the balance of power, or reduce overkill. Reduction below MAD levels is not rationally feasible in a real politik world in the forseable future, much less the near term.

It is funny that he is supposedly pro nuclear power but his anti-fissile material

Threads on thiss video have been done twice before. I started one of them