Is Barack Obama an Idiot?

[Matt W]

Let's stay on-topic, please.

DO NOT RESPOND IN THIS THREAD TO THE PRECEDING MESSAGE. Please contact a member of the staff privately if you have any questions.

[xyzer]

Mackey says

I would say that the U.S. Track record of winning its wars has been pretty darn good. We only started to lose wars when the will for victory in something we were already engaged in was no longer PC

And I agree! We also won the war of conquest in Iraq, in record time...
Saddams vaunted Republican Guard proved to be a paper tiger.
Russia was on it's Ass in WW2 until US Lend Lease kicked in. It didn't have the industrial base to compete. We did.

Our problem is we don't have the real will to fight wars of occupation like that in Vietnam and the present one. We overwhelm the enemy and then dont have the patience or resolution to hang on. Probably caused by political opportunism in the US. Plus the media and its embedded reporters reporting nonsense and inflating normal casualty rates. Casualties in Iraq are comparable to those of a peaceful US city of the same size population as the number of our troops in the country. Most of the explosive casualties are the Iraqis.

I've not run in to any antiwar type that has much else besides a normal life unimpacted by Iraq. Its just that the left and the antiwar types have inflated it's impact way beyond reality..The Democrat Congress betrays its motives when it adds billions of dollars of "pork" to war related appropriation bills? This while it is saying the occupation is a failure but we will fund it for the pork it allows us? Real patriots are they not?

By the way I think Obama is a fool! It took him 4 years to learn to practice law, now he expects to learn all there is to know about foreign relations in a couple of days...
Surely even the most ardent Obama fan can see through that campaign ploy? I'm waiting for his expert announcements on how to solve an occupation that has gone on for years. Aren't you?

[grandpa]

Quote by: xyzer And I agree! We also won the war of conquest in Iraq, in record time...

Well, at least you admit it's a "war of conquest." However, to talk of victory requires a few things: That there was a battle of any significance, and that there is something to actually win. Certain people may think they "win" but, as far as I'm concerned, they are all just losing sides.

Grandpa h.

Let's say, for the sake of moving the argument going forward rather than defending US claims for "winning" wars, can the U.S. "win" in Afghanistan? And just to make the question more interesting and useful what, in fact, does "win" mean? The end of the Taliban? Won't happen. They are Afghanis. The end of the war lord political system? Won't happen.That is the political system of Afghanistan. Rights for women? Won't happen! It hasn't happened in Saudi Arabia. Why would the Afghanis grant women rights when our allies the Saudis won't. The end of heroin production? Won't happen! Until the Americans and their partners leave (surrender/retreat) and the Taliban regain control. The end of corruption? Won't happen! A gas pipeline? Ah, yes! Now we know why we''re in Afghanistan. It's the crude, dude.

[grandpa]

Quote by: sdbest Let's say, for the sake of moving the argument going forward rather than defending US claims for "winning" wars, can the U.S. "win" in Afghanistan? And just to make the question more interesting and useful what, in fact, does "win" mean?

I think it's entirely human to say that, ultimately, nobody wins a war.

Grandpa h.

Quote by: grandpa I think it's entirely human to say that, ultimately, nobody wins a war. Grandpa h.

Grandpa h., I beg to differ, ever so sadly. The arms dealers and their "Merchant of Death" ilk win every war. Iraq is no different. Afghanistan will be the same. The losers will be the rest of us, and particularly the poor, gullible saps who put on uniforms and come back dead (if they're lucky) and horrifically wounded physically and mentally if not so fortunate, and the children, women, and men they kill--murder, really--in blind servitude to their corrupt masters, military and political. See YouTube - Charlie Chaplin.

[Nono]

Quote by: maximdewinter Do they teach anything in Canada about Japan and Italy being in WWII too...or was it just about Germany? Not only that, you may be surprised to learn the theaters of war extended from North Africa to Southeast Asia. One thing I must admit...your view of World War II is quite simple.

Italy was hardly a factor. Japan was, but not outside Asia.

Sorry, max, you can't get around the central role played by the USSR.

[Nono]

Back to Obama: I think it'll be plenty idiotic of him if he doesn't heed A. Huffington's warning here.

Arianna Huffington: Memo to Obama: Moving to the Middle is for Losers

In 2004, the Kerry campaign's obsession with undecided voters -- voters so easily swayed that 46 percent of them found credible the Swift Boaters' charges that Kerry might have faked his war wounds to earn a Purple Heart -- allowed the race to devolve from a referendum on the future of the country into a petty squabble over whether Kerry had bled enough to warrant his medals. Throughout the primary, Obama referred to himself as an "unlikely candidate." Which he certainly was -- and still is. And one of the things that turned him from "unlikely" upstart to presidential frontrunner is his ability to expand the electorate by convincing unlikely voters -- some of the 83 million eligible voters who didn't turn out in 2004 -- to engage in the system. So why start playing to the political fence sitters -- staking out newly nuanced positions on FISA, gun control laws, expansion of the death penalty, and NAFTA?

Why indeed?

[oades11]

Quote by: xyzer Mackey says I've not run in to any antiwar type that has much else besides a normal life unimpacted by Iraq. Its just that the left and the antiwar types have inflated it's impact way beyond reality..

So you can justify the current administration's foreign policy, regardless of the human casualties? From a philosophical perspective, is an American life worth anymore than an Iraqi citizen's? I mean sure, as an American, I don't want to hear that some of our troops never come home after having originally gone to war for the current administration's corrupt politics, ultimately for 'regime change'. However, it's easy not to care about that which is not within arm's reach- or better said, that which you are not aware of. In particular, it is all those who've ultimately died because of our intervention- our stupid foreign policy and international unilateralism- that you should keep in mind when you boast about 'winning' the war. How many of these deaths do think you're really aware of anyway? As GrandpaH implied, when the terms for what constitutes winning are undefined, it's silly to rave over our war efforts to give others the impression that it's a good thing, "like WOW, we're WINNING! The whole thing is more justified in my eyes now, so maybe now I'll experience less cognitive dissonance for any original intention of support."

Quote by: xyzer The Democrat Congress betrays its motives when it adds billions of dollars of "pork" to war related appropriation bills? This while it is saying the occupation is a failure but we will fund it for the pork it allows us? Real patriots are they not?

Source?

I'm sure it's also very convenient for you to claim all Democrats try this, regardless of whether you can find even one or two cases where such things have happened. I know few people have confidence in the Congress these days, but you're just constantly pointing the finger at Democrats, which shows your strong bias.

Quote by: xyzer By the way I think Obama is a fool! It took him 4 years to learn to practice law, now he expects to learn all there is to know about foreign relations in a couple of days...

Source for such a contention? You know, law school takes a while. How does taking four years to learn to practice law support the idea that Obama is a fool? When did he ever let on that his travels to Afghanistan, Iraq, and Jordan were to learn "all there is to know about foreign relations"?

Obama is, comparatively, far better than McCain when it comes to foreign relations, especially with predominantly Islamic countries. After all, how would McCain understand Islam better than Obama, who's own father was Muslim? Aside from Obama being a symbol for the liberty and equal opportunity so many in this country have prided themselves on, he is representative of such American constitutional ideals on an international scale. His policy of meeting with foreign leaders with no preset conditions is also much more commendable, and I think his good judgment and diplomatic approach will reconcile a lot of the international tensions that have culiminated after two terms with G.W. Bush's administration.

Neoconservatives call this appeasement, but I call it common sense in the international community. You don't build rapport with other leaders by coercion or the idea that you will not meet with them unless some of your 'conditions' are met. You do it through diplomatic persuasion and a foreign policy reflective of those ends you argue for.

[xyzer]

Oades 11...
I'm amused.
You don't respond to the point? How has your life been adversely impacted by the war and occupation in Iraq? Other than your psychological tremors about a few volunteer patriots being killed in the performance of their duty and service when their Congress, country and Presidenrt called?
I suggest you haven't been affected except in the eyes of the demagogic politicians and press you listen to? How else did you get the opinion that "it is a stupid war"?

Its a fact that for 5 or more years the Harry Reids, Nancy Pelosis and a host of opportunistic Democrat politicians have told you the war is wrong and you are suffering...Voila! You believe it? The "surge" wouldn't work and it did? Have you forgotten? The war is lost! Have you forgotten?
We are spending too much on the war" and I'll add some pork to the cost for my constituents? Their constant criticism was designed for political advantage and it helped elect Democrat majorities in both Houses.

As far as the pork inserted into the latest Iraq APPROPRIATIONS BILL it amounted to several billion dollars according to the last press report I read? Revealing a corrupt bargain by several Democrat politicians to support the effort onlt\y with a payoff?
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/30/opinion/30intro.html

Behind all their lofty rhetoric about the Iraq war and bringing home the troops, members of the House and Senate were busy tacking on $20 billion and $18.5 billion respectively in unrelated spending to President Bush’s $103 billion request. (He intends to veto the bill.) Despite their campaign talk about earmark reform last fall, the new Democratic leadership shamelessly used pork to buy votes — before the vote, Representatives Collin Peterson of Minnesota and Peter DeFazio of Oregon acknowledged that add-ons for their districts would influence their decisions.

Now you and others on the antiwar left are hitching your wagons to Obama. I heard and watched his unscripted press conference this morning and he used so many verbal pauses(eh, ah ,err) that it was hard to follow him. Besides that he spouted generalities and the same rhetoric that the rest of the politidcal opportunistic Democrats used over the years...belying the fact that he too was a critic of the war and foreign policy he now becomes so expert on?about? Here he was not even nominated yet and telling the world what he would do as president and commander in chief? And you believe he isn't a fool?(silly person, dupe)

[Matt W]

Tell me, xyzer...how well has that foreign policy expert GWB done there? How much foreign goodwill has he squandered since 9-11? I'm intrigued. I'm sure he's done ever so much better than someone who actually tries to go out and see for himself what's going on...

[xyzer]

Nono...If you believe Huffington or any of those leftists, you are in trouble? I served in Vietnam and two other wars and never heard of anyone but Kerry nominate himself for a purple heart when hit in the ass by a grain of rice from a bag of rice which he threw a grenade into?
The Swift Boat Vets were there! On the scene and yet the Kerry campaign tried to make it sound as if they didn't know what went on? Made it seem like some sort of a conspiracy because only Kerry and his campaign apparatus could tell the truth? Talk about being duped? If you voted for that traitor and liar Kerry you were sadly duped. His accounts of his battle participation and boat movements were also exagerations!

[Thanatos]

Xyler...

1. Dead patriots bother me.

2. With however many trillions we've spent so far I'm going to take a guess and say that maybe our schools and health care system could be a wee bit better.

3. The surge worked because we decided to bribe all the petty little warlords instead of fighting them.

Can I save your argument about dead patriots not mattering and use it whenever I need a concise definition of evil? Do you have any idea what you even just said?

[xyzer]

Hey Matt.

Tell me, xyzer...how well has that foreign policy expert GWB done there? How much foreign goodwill has he squandered since 9-11? I'm intrigued. I'm sure he's done ever so much better than someone who actually tries to go out and see for himself what's going on

Bush has served in the national executive office for nearly 8 years. Met with foreign dignitaries, had the advice of our foremostforeign policy experts and still does..
Obama has seved at the seat of government for about a year(much of that away on the political campaign trail) and before that was a community organizer and legislator in Illinios?
You be the judge...which has had more foreign policy experience? Which has the best foreign policy advisory staff? He or Obama?

I didn't agree with the Bush decision to go into Iraq...I'm on the record about that one. I'm a Monroe Doctrine believer. I didn't agee with Clinton bombing foreign countries either.

As far as foreign powers agreeing with our foreign policy...Who cares? The US makes foreign policy in its own interests not those of some other nation? And beleive it or not thats what the other soverign nations do also. Do you think "Ahwannajihad" or Chavez really cares what the US population thinks of his policies? Do you really care if China goes after the Tibetan rebels..care enough to get into a war with China? Do you really care what Mexcios policy is towards illegals enering Mexico from Central America?

[maximdewinter]

Quote by: Nono Italy was hardly a factor. Japan was, but not outside Asia. Sorry, max, you can't get around the central role played by the USSR.

I'm sure all the Americans who died at Anzio and the rest of the hellish American campaign in Italy would be glad to hear that Italy was hardly a factor.

Was I debating that the USSR didn't play a central role in WWII? I merely pointed out that there was more to WWII than Germany and Russia.

[Morality Games]

Was I debating that the USSR didn't play a central role in WWII? I merely pointed out that there was more to WWII than Germany and Russia.

I thought that went without saying . . . the Germans lost specifically because it was a two-front war.

Suppose for a moment we subtract all the Allied forces on the Western front from the equation (let's assume the United States never came to Europe, France was conquered, and Britain was sapped to the point it couldn't mount an effective counter-attack). That means fully 1 /3 of the German Army's resources and manpower (including some of their best officers, like Rommel) could be spent on the Eastern front, against Russia. The outcome of the war would have surely been different. Even with the vast difference in numbers, it would have been very surprising if the concentrated power of Nazi Germany couldn't defeat the Russians 1 on 1.

[Deadeye]

Anyone who believes that Obama is a fool is himself a fool. Anyone who says Hillary is a fool suffers from the same mental condition. Both of These people are bright, skeeming politicians. They want to be president. They want the power, they have egos to be stoked. Either will do whatever it takes to become elected. Both are to be feared.

The question is not whether or not Obama is or is not a fool, but rather would he be a good president?

The man is a neophyte. He has no experience whatsoever. He has never been a chief executive of anything. He has no meaningful governmental experience. He has no military experience. He has no legislative experience. He has never been a boy scout. He has never been a scout master. Why would anyone want to put a baby in the pilot's seat of a Boeing 747?

The last time we had a charming incompetent president we got Fidel Castro and a communist presence in Central America. It's still there. We also came within a hair's breath of a nuclear war with the Soviet Union.

Does anyone here actually think that Obama is better prepared to be president than was that earlier incompetent? He is not. His is charming and that's all. So was that other guy.

[Morality Games]

There is no reason for me to put up with this, come to think of it. Can someone actually present a detailed case for how Barack Obama's lack of experience will be a crippling problem down the road? It seems people are just taking for granted that experience is the only possible way to accomplish anything effectively in the oval office.

According to my study of history, where experience is lacking, rationality and good counsel serve just as well. Plenty of newcomer politicians steered their societies through dangerous waters.

[Deadeye]

Quote by: Morality Games There is no reason for me to put up with this, come to think of it. Can someone actually present a detailed case for how Barack Obama's lack of experience will be a crippling problem down the road? It seems people are just taking for granted that experience is the only possible way to accomplish anything effectively in the oval office. According to my study of history, where experience is lacking, rationality and good counsel serve just as well. Plenty of newcomer politicians steered their societies through dangerous waters.

I would like for you to list all of the times that inexperience has benefitted over experience. Let's see......inexperienced doctors are better than experienced ones? Noooooo.

How about inexperienced engineers are better than experienced ones?....usually not.

How bout fighter pilots? inexperienced ones are better than experienced ones? Definitely not.

I'll tell you want, you simpleton.......what we learn and what we know from what we learn is maybe the most important thing in our lives.

Obama doesn't know jack shit. Can he learn? Yes he can. Do we want him to learn while he is our president? Absolutely NOT.

So you want him to rely on skilled advisors? Well, better good advisors than bad, but the president leads.....got that? He LEADS. Without a strong personal sense of the American role in the World and in history a president just waffles. JFK is a classic example. A nice fellow who had no idea of what he was doing.

It's too dangerous to elect a relative political, foreign policy infant as our leader at this time. As a matter of fact, It has never been so.

[oades11]

Quote by: xyzer Oades 11... I'm amused. You don't respond to the point? How has your life been adversely impacted by the war and occupation in Iraq? Other than your psychological tremors about a few volunteer patriots being killed in the performance of their duty and service when their Congress, country and Presidenrt called?

Is that what you consider the proper criterion for whether or not war is justified? Whether an individual in this country, in and of themselves, has been adversely affected? You're unbelievably shortsighted. This is about far more than whether my life has been affected by the war in Iraq- but if that were my only reason to object to it, not only that would be terribly selfish of me, but it would also show how little I know about international relations.

I have a few friends over there. And they have close friends who've died. That's a personal enough view for me to see that the cost of this war isn't worth whatever alleged benefit there might be, notwithstanding the major issues I have with preemption as a foreign policy measure in a country that posed no real threat to us.

It is evident now that the reasons to invade Iraq were political, for a regime change and to secure Iraqi oil contracts for Big Business. Deals with Iraq are set to bring oil giants back - International Herald Tribune
How can you justify sending four thousand Americans to their deaths for this? An illegal war?