Why do you like Obama?

[DND Judgement]

i'm not american but i have plenty of relatives in the US and all of the vote democrat... but personally i do like obama... i don't understand why i just get a good impression that he will bring something new to american politics.. where as i get the impression that john mcain no matter how much he tries to distance himself from the bush addministration will just bring 4 more years of something pretty much the same...

 

[TomNook]

There is more to foreign policy than impressing your allies. Small European countries such as the Netherlands have very few enemies. Obama just isn't a very threatening person, and thats one of the reasons I don't like him. McCain may not be very likable to you leftist Europeans, but he's an old angry white war veteran who was tortured, and thats what the enemies of the US would either be afraid of or grudgingly respect.

Yeah, because fear and intimidation go a long way in earning international respect. This can't seriously be a reason for supporting McCain over Obama, can it? No one would be afraid of the old cripple who can't raise his hands above his head. They're afraid of the stockpile of nuclear weapons, super-powered army, and stranglehold over the global economy.

People who are afraid are the most dangerous, so I'd rather have someone who others ACTUALLY trust and respect (rather than begrudgingly). Bush put North Korea in the "Axis of Evil", said all sorts of fear-mongering things, and how did they respond? They test-launched a missile. Boy did that strategy work! Now we're sitting at the table with them, negotiating, and making a lot more progress.

Capacity for negotiation? Advantage: Obama

Does this change his capacity to blow an enemy to hell if necessary? Not at all. But whether or not it would be "necessary" is something he would give due deliberation.

First of all, this is about Obama not Bush. Second, when has Obama ever demonstrated his capacity for negotiation?

 

[Imitation Saccharin]

They want to kill us and tear down our government, they probably care who wins more than most of us do.

Ok, less subtle.

Obama or Mccain's plans for national security are probably going to be near-identical. Obama isn't going to replace police in New York with party clowns, and Mccain isn't going to, through sheer manliness, create 50,000 new cops.
Meaning to the average Joe Terrorist, regardless of who wins the election, committing terrorism is pretty much the same amount of effort.

 

[Godheval]

They want to kill us and tear down our government, they probably care who wins more than most of us do.

This kind of thing makes me sigh. Who is "they"? What people like you fail to understand is that in many cases, "terrorists" (as a sweeping term) consist of people who have chosen to resort to desperate and despicable methods for dealing with real problems.

Just as you want McCain at the helm because he is "scarier" and more likely to respond with violence in kind, so are terrorists often those people who are beyond reason and have resorted to destruction instead of negotiation? Can you not see the similarities?

Some radicals are just plain crazy. Some have political agendas. Some are just suffering people who have been manipulated into doing terrible things by the first two types. Unless we actually look at what other people's grievances are against our country, and work to understand and amend those differences, we will always have "terrorists".

Imagine some random man in Iraq, who prior to the war had no real problem with the United States, because it didn't factor into his life experiences in any obvious way. In come the soldiers, shooting and blowing up things, and in the process, this man's house is decimated, and his wife and daughter are killed.

The man, having little else to live for, is approached by someone from the lunatic fringe, and coaxed into strapping himself to a bomb. How much easier is it to convince this man to give his life in order to destroy those he has been told are responsible for taking everything from him? Much easier.

Had we not gone into Iraq at all, perhaps this man would still be living a humble life with his wife and daughter. Perhaps.

This is a hypothetical situation, and may or may not reflect events that actually took place in Iraq, but what it does is point out the NEED for looking at the bigger picture. Why are Palestine and Iraq fertile recruiting grounds for terrorism? MAYBE because there are people there whose lives SUCK, they're losing friends and family left and right, and they want justice.

But please, feel free to dismiss all of that, and attribute it all to some nonsensical desire to "destroy freedom".

But before you do, look up the word "terrorism", and see if you can't find instances of it in U.S. foreign policy. Oops, there I go being "intellectual" again. Silly me.

 

[TomNook]

They want to kill us and tear down our government, they probably care who wins more than most of us do.

Ok, less subtle.

Obama or Mccain's plans for national security are probably going to be near-identical. Obama isn't going to replace police in New York with party clowns, and Mccain isn't going to, through sheer manliness, create 50,000 new cops.
Meaning to the average Joe Terrorist, regardless of who wins the election, committing terrorism is pretty much the same amount of effort.

Say we get attacked while either of them is in office. Who is more likely to respond quickly without having to ask the UN for approval? Who us more likely wait until we have UN approval? The message McCain sends out is that we aren't going to ask for permission to come find you and kill you.

 

[Godheval]

First of all, this is about Obama not Bush. Second, when has Obama ever demonstrated his capacity for negotiation?

It is about Bush in as much as McCain's foreign policy is a mirror of that of Bush.

By "capacity for" I mean potential, and Obama has demonstrated that even in his assertion that he would be willing to sit down with our "enemies" and work through the differences. The truth is that we do not know what an Obama or McCain foreign policy will look like yet. We can only look at the men's records, and listen to what they say.

What Obama is saying just makes more sense. What McCain is saying has already been proven NOT to work.

 

[Godheval]

Say we get attacked while either of them is in office. Who is more likely to respond quickly without having to ask the UN for approval? Who us more likely wait until we have UN approval? The message McCain sends out is that we aren't going to ask for permission to come find you and kill you.

Funny that you advocate for a candidate based on his "intimidation factor", and that your entire analysis of foreign policy seems based on being afraid yourself.

"What if we're attacked?!"

The irony is staggering.

 

[Doug]

urgh, what is it about American politics that gets everyone into crying out unsupported facts about democrate party candidate X, or republican candidate Y. From what I can tell, from over here in the UK, the connection between the best choice and how the election goes seems utterly random.

But anyway, I don't really know anything much about the domestic policies of either, so I can't really comment. From what I've heard of the 2, Obama seems infinitely more likely to do good internationally for the Americans - for starters, he doesn't seem to brand the world in the stupidly over-simplified "For Us or Against US(A)" mind set that just amplifies the problems. I should point out also that dropping bombs on civilian areas, even in combat zones, does more harm than good - troops on the ground saves many more lives in the long run. But no, the US military under your republican party seems to think blowing half a country up will stop people from seeing them as occupiers and hence wanting to resist.

But thats abit of a side track... anyway, whatever, McMain mostly likely win, even if pictures of him eatting babies whilst burning a bible and the American flag appeared on the net.

 

[TomNook]

They want to kill us and tear down our government, they probably care who wins more than most of us do.

This kind of thing makes me sigh. Who is "they"? What people like you fail to understand is that in many cases, "terrorists" (as a sweeping term) consist of people who have chosen to resort to desperate and despicable methods for dealing with real problems.

Just as you want McCain at the helm because he is "scarier" and more likely to respond with violence in kind, so are terrorists often those people who are beyond reason and have resorted to destruction instead of negotiation? Can you not see the similarities?

Some radicals are just plain crazy. Some have political agendas. Some are just suffering people who have been manipulated into doing terrible things by the first two types. Unless we actually look at what other people's grievances are against our country, and work to understand and amend those differences, we will always have "terrorists".

Imagine some random man in Iraq, who prior to the war had no real problem with the United States, because it didn't factor into his life experiences in any obvious way. In come the soldiers, shooting and blowing up things, and in the process, this man's house is decimated, and his wife and daughter are killed.

The man, having little else to live for, is approached by someone from the lunatic fringe, and coaxed into strapping himself to a bomb. How much easier is it to convince this man to give his life in order to destroy those he has been told are responsible for taking everything from him? Much easier.

Had we not gone into Iraq at all, perhaps this man would still be living a humble life with his wife and daughter. Perhaps.

This is a hypothetical situation, and may or may not reflect events that actually took place in Iraq, but what it does is point out the NEED for looking at the bigger picture. Why are Palestine and Iraq fertile recruiting grounds for terrorism? MAYBE because there are people there whose lives SUCK, they're losing friends and family left and right, and they want justice.

But please, feel free to dismiss all of that, and attribute it all to some nonsensical desire to "destroy freedom".

But before you do, look up the word "terrorism", and see if you can't find instances of it in U.S. foreign policy. Oops, there I go being "intellectual" again. Silly me.

They being the people who 9/11ed the US. The soldiers wouldn't have blown up the mans house if they didn't suspect he was doing something out of the norm. Palestinians want Israel, and the US supports Israel, thats why they want the US gone. As for Iraq, don't believe everything you hear on the news. Soldiers aren't all violent psychopaths who hell bent on spreading Christianity.

 

[TomNook]

First of all, this is about Obama not Bush. Second, when has Obama ever demonstrated his capacity for negotiation?

It is about Bush in as much as McCain's foreign policy is a mirror of that of Bush.

By "capacity for" I mean potential, and Obama has demonstrated that even in his assertion that he would be willing to sit down with our "enemies" and work through the differences. The truth is that we do not know what an Obama or McCain foreign policy will look like yet. We can only look at the men's records, and listen to what they say.

What Obama is saying just makes more sense. What McCain is saying has already been proven NOT to work.

But the fact of the matter is that they are not willing to sit down and talk with us. How does Obama make sense, he doesn't make sense to me.

 

[Imitation Saccharin]

Say we get attacked while either of them is in office. Who is more likely to respond quickly without having to ask the UN for approval?

Democrats and Republicans voted for war in Iraq without consideration for UN approval, so neither?

The man's not at all substantively different to terrorists then Obama. Just drop the stereotype-based reasoning already.

 

[Broken.Longinus]

okay i understand the fear nay HATE of socialism but it seems to me that Obama isn't going to turn us into a socialist society even if he wanted to. We have too many stubborn conservatives to allow it and too many liberals for any semblance of order in a socialist society. Currently I'm rooting for Obama because I believe we have deregulated to much for the current political and economic climate. I'm not saying I want socialism but I want Corporations to be imbued with the knowledge that someone is watching their asses and can make life very uncomfortable. Thank AIG for that opinion. Also the govs going to have to step in and aid if not fix the economy. I mean FDR grabbed a hold of the weeping economy at the beginning of his term of office and shook it till it stopped crying. And while I'm sure both candidates will do that (metaphorically)i think Obama will handle the situation slightly better than MCcain. Got no reason for that thinking, it just a personal hunch. Also Palin in charge frightens me and I think Alaska is about all the power she can handle. I mean she made women pay for their rape kits when she was mayor for Gods sake (or so i hear). Thats downright cheap. Actually yeah Its mostly Palin. Don't want her having any semblance of true power.

 

[TomNook]

Say we get attacked while either of them is in office. Who is more likely to respond quickly without having to ask the UN for approval? Who us more likely wait until we have UN approval? The message McCain sends out is that we aren't going to ask for permission to come find you and kill you.

Funny that you advocate for a candidate based on his "intimidation factor", and that your entire analysis of foreign policy seems based on being afraid yourself.

"What if we're attacked?!"

The irony is staggering.

First of all, thats not my only reason for voting for McCain, it is just ONE. Call me paranoid, but I really don't want another 9/11.

 

[Godheval]

They being the people who 9/11ed the US. The soldiers wouldn't have blown up the mans house if they didn't suspect he was doing something out of the norm. Palestinians want Israel, and the US supports Israel, thats why they want the US gone. As for Iraq, don't believe everything you hear on the news. Soldiers aren't all violent psychopaths who hell bent on spreading Christianity.

You cannot be this deluded. Can you? Do you REALLY think that there are no innocent civilian casualties in war? And what does ANY man in Iraq have to do with 9/11? Probably NOTHING.

Just because you follow a platform blindly and out of fear does not mean that I do. I do not think American soldiers are violent psychopaths. I believe they mostly they are people loyal and committed to a fault, and thereby subject to the psychopathic whims of their leadership. After all, if an average citizen (e.g. YOU) drinks the Kool-Aid, then a soldier who is trained to listen before thinking is even more susceptible.

The American military have much in common with some "terrorists", too. Both "sides" recruit the young and desperate to fight for causes that may or may not be their own. And that is hardly the only similarity.

 

[TomNook]

Say we get attacked while either of them is in office. Who is more likely to respond quickly without having to ask the UN for approval?

Democrats and Republicans voted for war in Iraq without consideration for UN approval, so neither?

The man's not at all substantively different to terrorists then Obama. Just drop the stereotype-based reasoning already.

Yes he is, older male war veteran is what their culture respects. Who is in charge of all of these organizations, OLD MEN.

 

[gerrymander61]

So that I can feel open minded and not racist by voting for a black dude

 

[TomNook]

Godheval, I have to go now, but I would love to continue this discussion some other time.

 

[Godheval]

Call me paranoid, but I really don't want another 9/11.

Understandable. No one with any sense or compassion does. But if the attacks of 9/11 were predicated on the idea that America is somehow "evil" or deserving of "retribution" - however true or misguided this view may be - can you not see how responding with violence before understanding will only cause the cycle to continue?

Violence begets violence.

You avoid another 9/11 not just by "killing terrorists", but by addressing the underlying REASONS FOR terrorism. As I've said, not all people who commit terrorists acts are insane radicals. I would wager that most are not. We have seen many examples throughout recent history where "Today's terrorists" become "Tomorrow's diplomats". The IRA in Ireland - now a political party rather than a terrorist group, because their concerns were addressed. North Korea - now working towards disarmament.

The problems we face in the world are NOT about "Good" vs. "Evil", although the two sides in any conflict often think so, and to their ultimate ruin.

Obama, in his assertion that he would sit down and discuss matters with people who are now considered our enemies, demonstrates the potential for changing the current climate of antagonism. By contrast, an aggressive and imperialist approach like Bush/McCain's, which we've already tried - does not work, and will continue to create more problems. If we follow the cycle to its conceivable end, the world will be in ruins.

 

[Godheval]

Amen, It's funny how the people advocating wealth redistribution are usually the ones on the receiving end.

Funny how idiots make assumptions.

I've never in my life taken money from any wealth distribution program. I, and my family before me, has always worked - and struggled - to make ends meet.

And mind you, there are many wealthy social liberals, just as there are many wealthy people in quasi-socialist countries. In fact, the only wealthy people who do not agree with wealth distribution are the greedy ones.

Another thing you have to understand about wealth is that unless it is inherited, it is hardly the result of one person's actions. The wealthy CEO is NOTHING without his less-than-wealthy subordinates. So why should he get to buy that gold toilet seat while they can barely pay the rent?

It's about justice.

 

[hem dazon 90]

dont live in america but visit every summer, he is into the enviorment