(Untitled)

[demonofrazgriz]

Palin = badass.

I watched McCain last night and while he already had my vote in the bag, he definitely took it above and beyond voting against the other guy. Plus Palin is like a damn saint. PALIN FOR PRESIDENT.

Comments

[sirmeatball]

7) His half-brother actually likes where he is, and wants to stay in Kenya. "I was brought up well. I live well even now," he said. "The magazines, they have exaggerated everything. I think I kind of like it here. There are some challenges, but maybe it is just like where you come from, there are the same challenges,"
8) That's bound to happen when your father was born in Africa. Let's face it, in Africa it's hard to not be a part of those organizations and remain alive long. The fact that Obama has separated himself from that is a great part in his favor. If you don't want the left to hold Palin's daughter against her, don't hold a far removed cousin against Obama.
9) He didn't come back from vacation because there was nothing he himself could do about it. Would you expect a janitor to end their vacation too? A senator and a janitor have the same ability to deal with military actions. Instead, Obama held a press conference to make his opinion known (the most that he could have done). Both had the same general message: "Russia, get out. Don't escalate. We'll try to get the UN to step in". That message has not changed for either candidate.
(cont')

Obama has epitomized the American dream. From a poor single parent home, to a candidate from President. He has made solid changes in his time in Illinois, and truly helped the people there. He is inspiring, a very important trait for a president. He can, through words alone, encourage people to join volunteer work, the peace corp, and the armed services. All McCain inspires most people to do is to go to sleep.

[demonofrazgriz]

I won't go back and forth on propaganda because as you said about the Republican attack machine, the Democrat attack machine is no better (arguably worse but this about candidates not Parties).

Frankly about Palin, I think it's disgusting how people use this state trooper thing against her. The main was caught DRUNK ON DUTY TWICE so she got him fired. If he weren't in any way related to her, no one would have questioned it and she would have been praised. Either way, people can barely find anything wrong with her so they are holding onto this one "maybe" issue.

And frankly to say a war hero can't inspire people is bullshit, or it better be, because if it's not then this country needs to wake up and reconsider it's values.

Also: Troop surge. That in of itself nearly sealed the deal in my mind. To this day Obama claims no one could have forseen that it would have been successful... except General Petraeus who proposed it or those such as McCain who supported it? And you can call it "just following Bush" or a "political move" all you want, but the same could be said for opposing it as well.

At least, initially, Hillary had the balls to finish the war. Obama may as well wear a skirt, bend over, and ask Osama to be gentle.

[sirmeatball]

Obama has said an increase in the number of troops on the ground would make things more peaceful while we were there. The issue is that the cost of keeping that many troops deployed, with no exit strategy, is just a waste. If we instead put that money toward issues at home, we would be a stronger country, and would have the troop reserves to deal with issues (such at when Russia invaded Georgia. If they hadn't left, we wouldn't have had the manpower to do anything about it)

[demonofrazgriz]

While I agree more money and soldiers at home = good, at the same time I think the GWOT is more important right now. The war on terror isn't a traditional war, we need to fight them abroad or we WILL fight them here, and then it won't just be American soldiers dying, it will be civilians. American civilians.

People have recently forgotten that the war in Iraq (which is now a policing action, not a war) is only part of a much larger campaign against Terrorism. I agree with Obama on the point that we need more manpower in Afghanistan, but it's not enough. We need to finish Iraq, and nothing but victory is acceptable, and we are so close now, Obama's propsal to withdraw is premature. We are in the home stretch and we can do it, McCain sees this.

This country faces dangers greater than energy or economy, and while I personally feel McCain is stronger on those two issues that is open to the style of government people want. I want less, you obviously want more. But when it comes to the GWOT, I'm sorry but Obama is weak, incredibly weak. He is too worried about his personal image to continue this war that is VITAL to our nation's very existance.

AQ grows stronger everyday, especially now that they have re-established themselves in Waziristan and other Tribal regions of Pakistan. A solid base = reconsolidated leadership and goals = imminent attack. I would hope you could trust me on this one, but we are not safe from them yet. They have regained power, we need a President who will take the fight to them, wherever that fight may be - even if it's in Pakistan.

I'm not saying that with Obama as President we will suddenly have IEDs in smalltown America, but I AM saying that it is far more likely with Obama than with McCain.

Also, I don't disagree that Obama's story is inspiring. It's awesome that he has brought himself up to this point, but the fact of the matter is the only thing he is done in his political career is run for President - And I'll take substance and the willingness to do what is right over the willingness to cave into a populace of raging idiots who don't know what is going on outside of MTV.

[sirmeatball]

The invasion of Iraq was not related to the GWOT. Iraq did not support the attacks of 9/11. There was no solid evidence of a desire to build nuclear devices. It was invented information by Rumsfeld and Cheney. Bush knew this, but he went in anyway. America needs to man up and admit it was a mistake and has made us weaker. That's not to say I'm in favor of "cut and run" but instead to pass the torch to the Iraqis, and prepare them for policing their nation on their own. They are very near that point now, and their leaders want us to leave. If we do not, that is the very definition of a hostile occupation.

Energy and the economy is the only way to win the GWOT. When we are no longer dependent upon foreign oil, I can guarantee we will be fighting less in the middle east. Further, without a strong economy, we can not afford a military to continue to fight a GWOT. When a nation makes the military a higher concern than the economy, you end up with a Soviet Russia type nation; decline imminent and government-trained terrorists rule the majority of the lands.

I agree on you about AQ in Pakistan. If we never got into the Iraq debacle, we would have had the troops available to deal with them. Further, the republicans continue to send aid and military equipment to Pakistan to help fight the GWOT. Why are they not removing AQ in their own nation?

Obama's foreign policy is 'soft' in that he does not want to send in the army unless no other option exists. He wants to use diplomacy and trade agreements first. As evidenced by the IRA, when you help a troubled nation build a stronger economy and provide jobs, the terrorist influence begins to dwindle.

McCain, on the other hand, feels war is the answer. Certainly it is on occasion, but not always. More often, war displaces people, destroys their homes, and builds resentment toward the invaders (in this case, America). War produces more terrorists than it removes.

The true way to fight terror is to make more countries strong economically. If an individual has a high standard of living they are less likely to give in to terrorist mindsets.

The true way to fight terror is education. A smarter person will see the flaw in throwing their life away for a meaningless cause.

The true way to fight terror is not with weapons, but with social and economic benefits. Only the leaders need to be removed and thwarted.

[demonofrazgriz]

I had a long informative post that I accidentally deleted, so I'm going to cover the main points and continue:

Iraq supported and harbored terrorists as well as terrorized it's own people. If that doesn't fit the bill for our GWOT, then let's just let AQ roam free as well. You know - most Iraqis love us. Don't believe the liberal media. Women can walk down the streets in Iraq now without being stoned or raped. Men don't get dragged from their homes in the middle of the night and tortured for no reason. We did the right thing - we saved an entire nation from the tyrannical rule of a Terrorist. If you still want to argue that, define terrorism and we'll go from there.

Energy - Yes, we need energy independence. Which is why it's a good thing we have so much off-shore and in-land oil that Obama won't (until recently) agree to drill at all. Waiting to "discover" alternative fuel is BS, and the cost of refitting all of our vehicles for different types of fuel is so absurd - but people ignore that part of the equation. We need to drill to buy time while all of those things start happening, which is what McCain wants. Crawl walk run is what McCain wants, Obama wants RUN RUN RUN.

Economy - building another nation's economy is NOT going to stop Terrorism. You seem to not understand these groups at all - and trust me, I've been drilled over and over on their inner workings and ideals for almost 2 years now. They are religious fanatics, money is of no consequence to them. Look how god damn wealthy Bin Laden was before he joined the Mujahaiden (spelling?). That is just one example of many. Look at "Adam Gadahn". Came from America, a supposed economic powerhouse at the time, and he became a pivotal member of AQ's propaganda machine. It may diminish the numbers slightly but in the end the movement is too big now, and any effort on our part to establish something like that will be met with just as much resistance as Iraq was. Will we turn tail and run? With Obama, hell yes we will, because more dead soldiers won't get him re-elected.

It needs to be said again - Economy is nothing to these fanatics. These people are violent, they are insane, and they are the very epitome of evil. Terror is all they want. If you want more examples of terrorists who had cush, wealthy lives before joining the Mujahaiden or AQ, I'd be glad to supply more.

Pakistan - this remains to be seen. With Musharaff out, a lot could change. His military leadership all supported the Taliban - way back to when the Taliban originally took over Afghanistan. This alliance we have with them is shaky at best, and something needs to be done. I don't see Obama having the strong attitude needed to get things done there, but I definitely think the McCain/Palin ticket can do it.

IRA example - What kind of terrorist? Terrorists exist the world over, and they all have different agendas. I find it hard to believe any radical islamic terrorist groups could be swayed by economic growth, not even their potential recruits. They recruit disaffected youth, they will stick to slums which no matter what you do will always exist. And AQ is a worldwide movement. Are you proposing that Obama can single-handedly stand the entire middle-east on it's feet and turn them into the economic powerhouse needed for such a decline in terrorist activity? What about Europe? Did you know a large chunk of AQ recruits come from Europe? And Africa? So now the whole world is needed. It's not possible.

Education is needed, I agree, but it is one piece of the puzzle. And I hate to say it, but Islam =/= Christianity. It is submission. To tell them their religion isn't worth their lives will be very, very, very difficult.

In the end, this is a war words alone will not win. Obama fails to recognize this to it's fullest extent. I don't think I can change your vote, nor do I want too, you're entitled to whatever. But I do feel you are mislead on certain issues by the media, and I really want to encourage you to do some research of your own.

[sirmeatball]

Iraq was lead by a horrible person (who the CIA helped put in power). I don't mean to say that he was a even a decent guy, but I feel it is more important to keep a reasonable force at home for defense and sudden need. He wasn't the worst offender, and I still don't see why we went for him so early. We could have gotten away with supporting a coup and let them pick their own new leader. It's what we've always done in that region.

Alternative fuel needs to happen now. We have spent about 550 billion on the Iraq War. In that same timeframe (since 2003) we have given only 21.7 billion on alternative fuel research. If we put that 550 billion toward the research, we would all but have energy independence by now.

Drilling is part of the equation, but it is not the solution. Funding research is the start. When a viable source makes itself present, provide tax-cuts to those who get them while setting a target date for everyone to switch over. The drilling we have will hold us over until we switch. McCain's plan will run us out of oil before we even have a viable alternative. (This is to say nothing of the environmental impact of drilling)

Building foreign economies will not fix things on it's own. However, it helps improve the image of America. It will help bring more nations to help us in the GWOT. You have to admit, we can't be the world police. We need the help of other nations, and the more help the better.

Pakistan's new leader has already started to produce results. I'm cautiously optimistic.

Radical Islam is like that, but the typical Muslim is not. To say otherwise is like saying that all Christians go to church every Sunday; it's just not the case.

I appreciate that you're not trying to change my vote. I'm not trying to change yours either. It just seems from this side that the army has changed you to a mindset that thinks in terms of military force first. I ask for you also to think beyond just what the government presents. Looking at things from a different angle never hurts.

[demonofrazgriz]

(It's awesome to have an educated debate on this, as most Obama supporters are just WTF MCCAIN SUX)

When it comes to Iraq, I feel having that foothold in the Middle East was crucial. What a lot of people don't realize, and granted this was an unexpected (as far as we know) though definitely useful side-effect, is that we turned Iraq into a battleground for AQ. If it weren't for our presence in the middle east, people like Zarqawi who were considered too radical even by Osama Bin Laden himself, could very well have staged attacks in our own borders. And honestly military presence at home doesn't solve terrorism on our own soil without Martial Law, which no one (especially the military) wants. And for the "Fortify our Borders" plan to achieve the desired result, one HUGE thing that needs to happen is that the laws regarding Intelligence need to change drastically. Clinton really crippled it due to his own fears.

So in the end - the point of wether or not Sadam was an HVT is debatable. I feel he is, you don't, one way or the other the Iraq war is a success on multiple fronts.

As for alternative fuel, what I am saying is that drilling needs to be a temporary solution until alternative fuel research achieves it's goal, which is also what McCain is proposing, and suprisingly it is what Obama is proposing now as well. I give Obama credit for willing to change his stance to reflect what people want, but that is not the kind of war-time president we need. We need someone who sticks to his guns.

As for economic growth world-wide, it's more difficult (and more expensive) than the current state of the GWOT, and typically the countries we stand up turn on us anyway. By funding these countries, even so much as proxy wars and coups, we are funding the terrorists. Look at Bin Laden, Sadam, even Castro. The CIA doesn't have a good track record in this one and I think they realize it. Hell, look at Tora Bora, almost as big of a flop as the Bay of Pigs.

We need allies yes, but we need allies we can trust. And frankly the types of regions you're suggesting we target just won't do us any good. They may help us defeat AQ now, but then what? They have lots of money, lots of guns, and they feel like America is the dad they need to rebel against.

I haven't heard anything about Pakistan's new leader so I'll withold judgement there.

Actually, a correction I need to make on your Muslim thing - AMERICAN muslims don't believe in the submission thing. The majority of the Muslim community does believe in complete submission to God, in fact that is the cornerstone of their religion. This doesn't make them radical in most cases, but it DOES make it significantly more difficult to guide them away from it. Plus, many, many Madrassas are owned and run by AQ or members of the AQ network.

I agree the Army has changed my view on a lot of things, the very nature of what I do for the Army has opened my eyes to things I wouldn't know otherwise. I used to lean towards the left, but after seeing what could happen to us, I strongly feel we need a leader who isn't afraid to use force.

We need to not be afraid to fight because they will never be afraid to fight. We need to never back down because they will never back down. To them this is a holy war - to us it's our survival as a nation. The stakes are way higher than the news makes it seem.

[sirmeatball]

It seems the difference between us on Iraq, as you point out, is that we disagree if Saddam was a HVT. I agree that if he indeed was working on WMDs, he would have been a HVT. It turns out he was not. Without that, I feel he was not a HVT but you still feel he was for other reasons. I think this may be a position in which we have to agree to disagree.

If the goal was to have a presence in the middle east, the better way to do so (in my opinion) would have been to come to Israel's aid. The vast majority of Americans are pro-Israel, so no misinformation would need to be presented. It would have added to our "We help our allies" credit, and would deal with what has been the biggest problem in the region for the last 60 years. It bothers me that we opted to instead make a moderate problem into a big problem (Iraq) instead of trying to fix a big problem (Israel/Palestine).

I appreciate Obama's pragmatism. He had a stance against the degradation of the environment. That was his main concern with drilling in the US. In order to get the plan moving, he saw that he would have to approve of drilling to get anything started. This strikes me as a prime example of reaching across the aisle to get something done. I agree that not everything should be compromised on, but this is something that (while I disagree with it) I can see the rational for.

I think the modern examples of "standing up" a country are poor. We have not really stood up any nations since Japan post-WW2. I think if we use the Japan model of reconstruction, we will result in many more ally states that are worth having as allies. So long as we just trash the place, give them gun and leave, we are bound to have trouble.

Many Muslims that submit do so because they are lead by a theocracy. Bush was right in that we need to help foster Democracy in those regions. The problem is he chose to do so with military force. Democracy is a form of government of the people, and for the people. If the people don't want it, they won't have it. To foster democracy would require education and free thought. That occurs best when done by aid groups, rather than military ones.

If you have an angry dog and you smack it, it gets angrier. This is true of nations as well. If we have nations angry at us (like many in the middle east are, for example) the proper course of action is not to provoke them, but to build trust. It's harder, and takes longer, but it is the only path to a sure victory.

So long as we continue to topple governments rather than rebuild them, new terror-supporting states will emerge. The stakes are high, and that's exactly why we must use the route to true victory and not the path to temporary victory.

[demonofrazgriz]

Your points are all valid, but sadly in this war they aren't practical. For too long we left AQ unchecked and now it is an idea that is far too power and far too violent to be stopped with anything other than force.

I personally will not support a man who seems to think it's ok for the thousands of innocent people whose lives were ended or ruined on 9-11 to be silenced. I will not support a man who is not willing to go to any extreme to punish those responsible.

Is it violent? Yes. Is it humanitarian? That is debatable. Is it good for our Economy? In the short term no - in the long term it remains to be seen. This is a price we must pay to preserve and defend freedom, and to avenge the innocent people who died that day.

Even beyond our own people, lets not discount the innocent Iraqi's killed by AQI or JAM. I won't say an American bullet has never killed an innocent Iraqi, but I promise you the numbers will speak for themselves here. Those in London. Those in Spain. The countless lives all over the world who have been destroyed by these psychopaths.

Obama's diplomacy is not the answer for the GWOT. It is far too soft, far too late, and he simply doesn't understand the enemy.

We need to rebuild and foster democracy, but that can't happen until these people have been defeated. Without military force and oversight, we'll be giving countries money hand over fist when we barely have enough for ourselves, and we'll "trust" them to use it wisely, and not just use it to fund more terrorist attacks.

And it's interesting you should bring up Japan, because I'd like to point out our war with AQ is very similar to that of Japan. We were attacked, we retaliated, and we WILL help the innocents caught up in the middle. But we have not defeated the enemy yet, and until we do, we can't look that far ahead.

AQ is as big a threat now as it ever was, and the American people have become complacent that nothing will ever happen to us again. They say they will never forget 9-11 and they have. I'd like to point out that is was this a combination of this War and our military intelligence that has kept AQ out of our borders (along with Border Patrol, our Police Forces, etc.). It wasn't diplomacy - but show of force. That is what these people understand.

I, as much as anyone, would love to see a world where we can convince people that terrorism is not the answer, and we can set aside our differences and coexist. It is the enemy that doesn't want this. The enemy's goal has been clearly stated - the destruction of the American people. NOT America, but it's PEOPLE. They claim we live in sin and thus should die. Driving us out of the "holy land" was merely the original driving force that got AQ set up, the way they convinced the Mujahaiden to join the cause. And it's now evolved, and we cannot go soft on it.

I challenge you to watch the footage from 9-11 again (it's easy enough to find online) and come back to me to tell me we need to use diplomacy. I watched that footage again today for some remembering 9-11 thing, and all of those feelings of rage and sadness came rushing back. These people speak bullets, it's all they know.

I'm sorry to go off on this, but this issue if very serious to me. My biggest beef with Obama is the fact that he is not willing to do what it takes to punish these people.

Also I wanted to ask - what is your opinion on the whole Obama-Ayers thing? That seems like a big deal to me, and it's something that is pretty hard to downplay. If it's alright to attack Palin for firing a state trooper who got drunk on the job twice and threatened to kill his family, I'm pretty sure it's alright to question why Obama accepted fundraiser money from a known demostic terrorist.