Post

Not Just President

I support John McCain for President because we are electing more than just a President. When we cast our vote we will be electing our next Commander-in-Chief. I just can't see Obama or Clinton going head to head with the Joint-Chiefs-of-Staff. I don't think either even knows what they're getting into because I think they have not given any consideration to how they will fulfill the role of The highest ranking military person in the world. At least McCain understands that part of the job and has military experience, knows military history (which keeps us from making the same mistakes) and how to get the most from his troops and fight to get them what they need. Everytime a Democrat gets in office they balance the budget by selling off the military. I was a WAC when my friends were burning their draft cards and running off to Canada. The "fiasco" in Nam was that our leaders caved in to a public that thought "all you need is love." Freedom has never been free - it has always been bought with the blood of our troops and the support of our patriots. And that support must not waver. Obama and Clinton both voted pro-war with Iraq but now say they have plans for complete withdrawal and neither has offered an explanation for their turn around. So were they making bad decisions then or will they make a terrible decision as Commander-in-Chief if given the opportunity? And how are they making these plans when they are not yet privy to the necessary intelligence? Putting Clinton or Obama in as Commander-in-Chief makes about as much sense as making a third grader dean at MIT!The third grader is probably a good kid but he has not been prepared to take on that office. The plan to set a date by which to remove all U.S. troops from Iraq by a given date would be laughable if I could get over the nightmares I still have of that same plan being implemented in Saigon. Have you ever seen footage of the people trying to get inside the gates - hanging off helicopter skids and dropping to their death - and what wasn't on film that I'm aware of was the three months leading up this when American troops were being picked off in great number because they had no support and no supplies. Have you ever seen the look on a soldier's face when he comes in badly wounded and begs to die because he 'stole' ammunition from the bodies of his dead comrades to make it to the closest medical unit? No, that idea isn't new, it isn't laughable and it won't work this time either!

Instead of just electing a President this nation should stand as one and take the Oath of Alliegence which all military personnel must take. When we stand up and say we will accept nothing less than democratic elections in Iraq and have the troop strength to back it up we won't just help Iraqi's we'll help the world and we will really FEEL proud to be an American. Part of the Oath states, "I will defend my country from all enemies, foreign and domestic." Our domestic enemies today are politicians who play fast and loose with American lives to win an election. No, don't kill them - find out who they are and don't vote for them. And if they get in and make decisions that are dangerous to our military or our freedom let's get them out quick. Or create such a fervor that they will have to bend to OUR will - that's their job, after all!

I have a son in Iraq now and my nephew has taken his unit there three times. They believe we must not quit until democracy is established. We were in Korea before we were officially in Viet Nam but that's not popular so you don't hear anyone screaming we've been there too long. And yes, American soldiers are killed there, just not in big enough numbers for a politician to worry about. One is too many, but we need to be there and I'm not in favor of pulling out of Korea.

I don't have a problem with Hilary because she is female. I'm one myself and I served my country proudly. But I was trained before I was deployed and then I got my REAL education. I didn't walk in and take over and would not have wanted to. She wants more government, higher taxes, and less freedom for families. She doesn't want to be President, she wants to be King!

I don't have a problem with Obama because of his race. I served with and have the greatest admiration for people from so many races I couldn't begin to count them. Obama simply is not qualified. And he says things that are just idiotic! When President Bush criticised him for proposing that we should negotiate with terroists he was crying to high-heaven. He never proposed to do that he said. He also said, "If Iran ever tried to pose a serious threat to us, they wouldn't stand a chance. And we should use that position of strength that we have to be bold enough to go ahead and listen. That doesn't mean we agree with them on everything. We might not compromise on any issues, but at least, we should find out other areas of potential common interest, and we can reduce some of the tensions that has caused us so many problems around the world." Excuse me, but what's the difference with negotiating with and sitting down and talking with terrorists? He would sit down with the leader of a country who said that Israel is a 'stinking corpse' and he is dedicated to the extinction of the state of Israel. Obama doesn't have a clue and his ill-thought remarks are dangerous.Let's stop worrying about sexism and racism and really listen to what they're saying.

gwenwood gwenwood 46-50 12 Responses May 30, 2008

Your Response

Cancel

You're pathetic! Hillary Clinton has been an exceptional Secretary of State and President Obama has done a great job considering what he inherited from the last RepubliCON!

"The highest ranking military person in the world" ............ just jingoistic arrogance ...... and people wonder why the US and it's people has the reputation it does .........<br />
<br />
I suggest you try reading.

Thank god that Obama was elected! Do you actually believe it would have been better if McCain was president. He put the country in the worst peril ever (military included) by choosing that idiot Sarah Pallen as a running mate! So that was a result of his decision making ability -- really -- OR were his strings just being pulled by the Grand Ol' Party????<br />
<br />
By the way, did I interpret your post correctly that you were a WAC during Nam? If so, you must have been the youngest person in history since you list your age as 46-50.

Ron Paul would've made an excellent president.

OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA all the way :]<br />
<br />
<br />
-but I totally respect your opinion.

Would seem your for the war in Iraq. Hmm...we need to prevent saddam's weapons of mass destruction right? o no, now we need to spread democracy and freedom to Iraq. Well if the Iraqi citizens under a tyrannical regieme of saddam hussein, (who was put in power by our cia) then why aren't the people of Darfur deserving of the same? The Iraqi citizens weren't particularly suffering, least not compared to the standards of living of those around. And if they were, well it's our fault for putting saddam in power in the first place. We put him in because he would remain loyal to us and our interests, aka give us oil, in exchange he got money and built an infastructure for the country, something that the country greatly benefited for. Then he goes and tests some biological weapons on northern Iraq who was rebelling, and creates a long war against Iran, and invades kuwait. Not the best things, but again, we put him there, were to blame, so ok, let's go in there and take him out. Now what, saddam's son isn't going around the streets raping women he chooses in his limo. YAY! now our us soldiers are doing the same in humvees. The difference? about 100K Iraqi's dead. And now Iran is without it's buffer, the two kept each other in check, like two crabs in a bucket each constantly struggling to get on top of the other, but neither actually getting out. But now that Iran doesn't have to spend focus on military power vs Iraq, it can spend on creating their bomb to wipe israel. No we didn't go into Iraq to free them, we went there to steal their oil. (My own personal opinion of the plan is that Iraq is now a military base to suppress any rebellion to of the new world order to come. It's WWIII's early stages. Russia is attempting to grab back it's previous territories, Europe is uniting. Every major power is drooling at grabbing up territory when war busts out. Also, in my opinion, this leaves Iran free to build a nuke to take out israel. You saw their last elections stolen, the people didn't vote in their dictator, why should't we give them freedom too? Cause the bible says all nations will abandon israel and gather at it's doorstep to conqueror it. US will fail in keeping Iran in check, fulfilling that we will abandon it, and Israel will pay the price. Least those are some of my long term predictions, of yes, worst case scenarios, but the mayan calendar has to run out sometime right?) Anyways, sorry I rant, but the simple fact that somebody supports another puppet of the NWO brings out my rant.

It was bad timing for McCain, or almost any other republican for that matter, in the past election. What the world needed (not just US) was a pro-Keynesian to help restore the economy. And of the two, Obama was by far more suitable for the job.<br />
<br />
You should perhaps read into regular economics (not become a supply-side freaker, or monetarist *spits*), and become slightly more tolerant of the 'terrorists': Most of them are poor souls who were brainwashed by crazy fundamentalist brains - the latter being the only true bad guys. (An analogy: Soldiers fighting against eachother are usually not personal enemies - they do what they are told, paid for, or conditioned to do - they should not be blamed for killing other side's soldiers in a war).<br />
<br />
And if Obama is not 'the best' at warfare and strategy, he has got advisers; any intelligent being who knows of his weakness will also consult others, who are more qualified. And about the negotiating: No one will singlehandedly ever make people forget the past (I'm thinking about the hate towards Israel in those areas: Read some world history and you'll understand their problems) - what can be done is to improve the situation; war, by experience, has not done so in those areas (in e.g. Japan etc (Japanese aggression towards Asia), it has helped a lot), so logically, there is nothing wrong with trying other things than war.<br />
<br />
(Another analogy: You feel so strongly towards the American soldiers - that's just normal: But those you are accusing of terrorism/aggression - they feel the same, and for a MUCH MUCH longer period of time. If you don't think you may change suddenly in, do you think they will too?? No, but their children and childrens children may, if they never experience what people do, and have done in the past).

i respect your choice, i just think McCain is a bit stubborn!

Does the commander in chief actually have anything more than a ceremonial role in the US then? In the UK the CiC is the Queen, and she's not exactly a hard-bitten military commander last I checked.

I invite everybody in this conversation to inspire others to vote. Go to this site: http://www.amillionreasonstovote.com and share one of your million reasons to vote.

war is only pointless if you quit without victory!!

Obama did not vote for the war. He was not even in the Senate at the time.<br />
<br />
And exactly what great catastrophe did the US suffer because we left Vietnam? I guess Communism took over the world, right? Your war was pointless, your son's and your nephew's wars are pointless. Live with it.