A vote for Romney is a vote for war

Obama is waiting until after the election to start another war.

Romney is licking his chops in anticipation of carrying the football.

Don't let either one fool you!

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by Wonderer2012

 

Actually... I saw your point fine.. I've also read over your threads and seen the Obama position you're posting almost everything from, as a common line running through it all. So..I'm keeping that in mind....

I see what he is doing as well as you do. You see it as caution and Obama is a shrewd operator. Fine... We all have different opinions.

I see what he's doing as cheap political stunts to make sure the timing is what he needs it to be for the killing of another nation...or at least a % of it.

Syria for sure. Iran most likely and if he gets 4 more...absolute certainty. I don't know where this little War train goes after that but damn sure we won't be stopping with Iran. It's the world tour, it seems and Obama picked up right where Bush left off.

Under Obama, we've got combat forces and advisers across the whole of North Africa. That's new to him..... We're pushing 300 drone strikes where Bush had under a 100 his whole EIGHT years. One isn't necessarily better than the other...but that is the point. They're both evil and equally criminal. Obama just has better P.R. than Bush ever did.

I agree with what you are saying and I think you know your stuff

It's hard to get across what I'm saying.

To me, American presidents are nothing more than front men- Obama will have advisors telling him Iran is evil and a threat to national security etc. When the Libya campaign started, there would have been plenty of influential parties persuading and directing foreign policy with Obama just doing what he is advised to do. (I'm not justifying him).

With that in mind, the idea that the president doesn't really make decisions, then I just find it weird he is going against his masters on the Iran issue.

Whoever is president next year will have the same masters, yet Romney is parroting EVERYTHING he is told to say. Obama is contradicting his current policies everywhere and saying no to the Iran issue. I just find it intriguing if anything because he's not doing his chances any favours by opposing the pro Israel and neocon agenda that is rampant in American politics.

I perfectly understand his apparent apprehension to an Iran military option may be part of the script, but you cannot 100% rule out the fact he is genuinely worried about the consequences of such a war.

We'll have to wait and see I suppose to see for sure.

Personally, I wouldn't vote at all if I were American

EDIT- just to add, I agree Obama could also be holding back until the elections- an Iran conflict now would petrol prices soar, which would not be the best policy before an election!

reply to post by Wonderer2012

Okay, and fair enough... I have been misunderstanding your position in some ways. My bad as much as anything, and I get your point a lot better now.

In reference to your point... Oddly and as seems to be happening as not these days, I agree with you on half of it. The half about the U.S. Presidents...and all the MAJOR powers..being run by another level above those elected.

On that, and about all we do disagree on for the specific point, is that I think the Presidents are given fairly broad guides and goals they're expected to stay within and work toward. Perhaps even as specific as milestones they're expected to accomplish in exchange for whatever support they got into office and for getting a second shot at it for term 2.

Outside of that, I think they each have very broad discretion to pretty well handle things as they choose...which explains the radical differences in life under Clinton, to Bush to Obama. All three had night/day differences in how they were as Presidents and how it was to live here while they were.

I guess, in the end...and at least on this, we aren't too far apart after all. err... Text discussions can be tricky for understanding and moods sometimes can't they? lol...

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by Wonderer2012

 

Okay, and fair enough... I have been misunderstanding your position in some ways. My bad as much as anything, and I get your point a lot better now.

In reference to your point... Oddly and as seems to be happening as not these days, I agree with you on half of it. The half about the U.S. Presidents...and all the MAJOR powers..being run by another level above those elected.

On that, and about all we do disagree on for the specific point, is that I think the Presidents are given fairly broad guides and goals they're expected to stay within and work toward. Perhaps even as specific as milestones they're expected to accomplish in exchange for whatever support they got into office and for getting a second shot at it for term 2.

Outside of that, I think they each have very broad discretion to pretty well handle things as they choose...which explains the radical differences in life under Clinton, to Bush to Obama. All three had night/day differences in how they were as Presidents and how it was to live here while they were.

I guess, in the end...and at least on this, we aren't too far apart after all. err... Text discussions can be tricky for understanding and moods sometimes can't they? lol...

I'd agree with you on the point that presidents are given goals and milestones which they have to achieve- that's the deal in a way that gets them into power. Makes perfect sense.

I would go further and say once you get to this level of politics there is a fine line the likes of Obama has to play- times come when he has to go against what he thinks is right to keep the people who made him president happy. They're very powerful people who can make things 'happen', that was the basis of my point- that for Obama to stand up in front of the AIPAC and say no to an Iran military option takes some cajones (unless as you pointed out, it is just part of the script before the elections)

Glad we got round to seeing each others points