It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Commander in Chief?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 03:31 PM
link   
Good afternoon/Evening/Morning ATS Users! Today Barack Obama, delivered a speech in regards to Iraq and Afghan. Barrack Obama is focusing on how Mccain and Bush both have no startegy on having "success" in Iraq and still finds the war pointless. However McCain stated having deployed more US troops in Iraq, has reduced violence in Iraq, and he plans to reduce violence in Afghan by sending more troops to Afghan. However Barack states being that there is little violence in Iraq, he would stabilize Iraqi government and withdraw US troops from Iraq, and redeploy them in Afghan. The question today ATS Users is Who do you think would be a better commander in chief? Mccain, the person who says "I know how to win wars", but has helped lead us to an unnecessary war, or Barrack Obama "McCain and Bush have no strategy for success"? I personally like McCain more for commander in chief. He knows what he is talking about.

Ending the Iraq war is necessary so that the United States can focus on Afghanistan and Pakistan, "where the Taliban is resurgent and Al Qaeda has a safe haven," he wrote.



"Sen. Obama will tell you we can't win in Afghanistan without losing in Iraq. In fact, he has it exactly backwards. It is precisely the success of the surge in Iraq that shows us the way to succeed in Afghanistan," he said. "It is by applying the tried and true principles of counter-insurgency used in the surge -- which Sen. Obama opposed -- that we will win in Afghanistan. With the right strategy and the right forces, we can succeed in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
What McCain said

What Obama said




posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 03:36 PM
link   
The thing about Obama is that he seems willing to do things based on popularity and not reality. That is why his positions need constant "clarification"


Not only that, but Obama hasn't even been to either country yet and hes telling McCain how it should be? How can Obama say he'll pull our troops out now that violence is down? Wouldn't that completely throw away the gains we've made? We ALL want to pull out, but there is a right way and a wrong way. Any idea that it'll happen soon is a pipe dream and the sooner Obama admits that to his followers, the better chance he'll have in November.



posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 04:00 PM
link   
I agree. Sen Obama does not have what it takes to lead these wars at least not at this moment. In this point in time it would benefit us to have a commander in chief with more experience leading these war. However I hope it does not come back to bite us in a$$ before he starts another unnecessary war l


McCain added that special attention must be paid to Pakistan, "where terrorists today enjoy sanctuary." He called for the strengthening of local tribes that are willing to fight terrorists there, as well as greater nonmilitary assistance to the civilian government.
:


WASHINGTON - Sens. Joseph Biden and Richard Lugar said Tuesday they will push bipartisan legislation this year that would triple humanitarian spending in Pakistan but threaten to cut military aid unless Islamabad does more to fight terrorists.


[edit on 15-7-2008 by Solo954]



posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dronetek
The thing about Obama is that he seems willing to do things based on popularity and not reality.


isnt that what a representative elected politician "of the people, by the people, and for the people" is supposed to do?

or did this country at some point become a dictatorship?

Because i never got that memo.

[edit on 7/15/2008 by Andrew E. Wiggin]



posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 04:49 PM
link   
isnt that what a representative elected politician "of the people, by the people, and for the people" is supposed to do?

not when your making future broken promises to the people. I dont doubt Obama would be a better president then McCain. However McCain does make better sense when it comes to the war. I think McCain has the experience, and knowledge. Obama "strategy" does sound good as well but I don't think its full proof like McCain. Just like McCain said

"[Obama] is speaking today about his plans for Iraq and Afghanistan before he has even left, before he has talked to Gen. Petraeus, before he has seen the progress in Iraq and before he has set foot in Afghanistan for the first time," McCain said at a campaign event in New Mexico.



posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Solo954
 


With all due respect, i have to disagree

You're either for the people or you're for yourself (speaking in terms of a politician) you can't be "for the people" when the "people are for you" and be against them when it doesnt suit your agenda.



posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin

Originally posted by Dronetek
The thing about Obama is that he seems willing to do things based on popularity and not reality.


isnt that what a representative elected politician "of the people, by the people, and for the people" is supposed to do?


Clarification the above reply.



posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Solo954
Sen Obama does not have what it takes to lead these wars at least not at this moment.


What does it take? What is he missing? Because McCain has no experience leading wars either. Being in the military and not leading over troops in wartimes doesn't make McCain any more qualified to handle this than Obama. In fact I think Obama would do a better job of handling the whole "world" scene.

Here's my take. Obama was against the war in the first place. He has been against it all along. McCain has supported the war all along.

What we need is someone with good JUDGMENT. If Obama had been president at the time, we probably would have captured Osama (which BushCo failed to do in his haste to get into Iraq) and Obama never would have started a stupid war in Iraq in the first place.

If there IS a problem in Pakistan, I don't want McBush at the controls. They had their shot and royally messed up everything. Now, someone else has to come along and clean up the mess.

I don't want to look back in 5 years and think, "Damn! We never should have let McCain drag us into this (new) war"! I want to look back in 5 years and say, "Thank goodness we got out of Iraq when we did and got things settled in Afghanistan, too. It's nice that the US is in a position of respect again instead of being known as the Bully of the world.

Every president who takes the office is new to something. He has advisors of all stripes. What he has to do is make good judgments based on the information he is given. I have NO indication whatsoever than McCain could make a judgment without checking with George, first. And then, I know it wouldn't be a good judgment.

In your first post, You quote what McCain said, then quote what McCain said Obama would say... Kind of one side of the picture. I'd rather see what each of them said.


Obama:



Ending the Iraq war is necessary so that the United States can focus on Afghanistan and Pakistan, "where the Taliban is resurgent and Al Qaeda has a safe haven," he wrote.

"Iraq is not the central front in the war on terrorism, and it never has been," he wrote.


So, yeah, I think Obama and his good judgment will take us out of Iraq carefully and then deal with the other mess Bush left in Afghanistan.

[edit on 15-7-2008 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin
reply to post by Solo954
 


With all due respect, i have to disagree

You're either for the people or you're for yourself (speaking in terms of a politician) you can't be "for the people" when the "people are for you" and be against them when it doesnt suit your agenda.


When you govern by polls and popularity, you are not leading. You're actually doing the people a disservice. Much like Clinton, who ignored and inflamed our enemies without doing anything to fight them. Thus, we get struck time after time leading to 9/11.

Say what you want about Bush, but we haven't been attacked again.



posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 05:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Dronetek
 


we have not been attacked again.

Yet.



posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin
 


I agree with you sir, and it would be great if I can also agree with Obama's strategy, but I cant. I, as part of the people, cannot afford to agree with his promise because the man hasn't even been to Iraq, or has yet even speak with any military leadership from Iraq how can I trust what Obama is saying, when he or the people don't know of any Iraqi an progress as well (not to mention he is a flip flopper)? However McCain does not give a full speech on strategy like Obama did, all his promises has been proven. All he said

"Sen. Obama will tell you we can't win in Afghanistan without losing in Iraq. In fact, he has it exactly backwards. It is precisely the success of the surge in Iraq that shows us the way to succeed in Afghanistan," he said.




top topics



 
0

log in

join