The W
Views: 100819927
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
24.11.14 1859
The W - Current Events & Politics - Iraq aside, little separates Obama, McCain on use of military force
This thread has 4 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Thread rated: 5.12
Pages: 1
(300 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (6 total)
TheBucsFan
TheChiefsFan








Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 104 days
Last activity: 104 days
#1 Posted on | Instant Rating: 2.65
It sure is a good thing this story was written a year after these goofs began campaigning.

Just two questions in the three debates between the two nominees touched on the subject, and neither has spoken at length on it during a fall campaign dominated by economic issues. Yet both have revealed a willingness to commit U.S. forces overseas for both strategic and humanitarian purposes. Both agree on a course of action in Afghanistan that could lead to a long-term commitment of American soldiers without a clear statement of how long they might remain or what conditions would lead to their withdrawal.

Both candidates favor expanding the armed forces, Obama by 92,000 and McCain by as many as 150,000. Both speak of situations when the United States might have to commit its troops for "moral" reasons, whether or not a vital American interest was at risk. Both accept what Andrew Bacevich, a retired Army colonel and professor at Boston University, calls the "unspoken consensus which commits the United States to permanent military primacy" -- shared, Bacevich said, by leading figures in both parties.


While I object to the implication in the first sentence of this story that there is any substantial difference between Barack Obama and John McCain on the status or future of the US military presence in Iraq, that's not the main problem with this story.

The Washington Post finally raises a valid point - that Obama and McCain are in virtual lockstep over continuing the US practice of foreign policy via its military - and doesn't even sniff at the possibility that the side the two men agree to take is the wrong one.

The US spends more on its military than every other country on Earth combined. Maybe - just maybe - the security risks these two men would like voters to believe they face are not a result of a military that is too small, and therefor making the military bigger isn't the answer? Maybe it's the US' insanely huge military - and the reckless manner in which the government uses it - that is behind the world's souring opinion of the US? Aren't these kinds of questions at least worth asking? Perhaps McCain and/or Obama have a legitimate reason for thinking such a bloated military needs to be bigger still. Perhaps they can offer a legitimate reason for US troops to be stationed in two-thirds of the countries on Earth.

We'll never know, though, as long as the media refuses to question them.
Promote this thread!
DrDirt
Banger








Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 32 days
Last activity: 6 hours
#2 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.85
First, I must agree with the premise that there is no diference and I don't. Part of the problem IMHO, is that there are forces/events that have and will occur that push whoever is president to act in a given manner regardless of their beliefs. That includes the minor candidates.

Part of the call for a larger military is the belief, really since Wilson that we are the arsenal of democracy and have a manifest destiny to help the world.

The difference now is the Bush Doctrine which MCain appears to support and Obama doesn't. Much of Obama's use of the military seems geared toward the humanitarian. I don't know if I agree with either candidate on their use of the military.

Part of the reason there has ben little discussion is the economy which has put everthing else on the backburner.



Perception is reality
TheBucsFan
TheChiefsFan








Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 104 days
Last activity: 104 days
#3 Posted on | Instant Rating: 2.65
    Originally posted by DrDirt
    Part of the reason there has ben little discussion is the economy which has put everthing else on the backburner.


Eh, they were campaigning for a year or so before the recent crisis, and even then the candidates were more concerned with pastors and flag pins than they were discussing things that actually matter in any way whatsoever.
MUTigermask
Boudin rouge








Since: 8.10.03
From: Columbia MO

Since last post: 507 days
Last activity: 3 hours
#4 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.09
Ever wish we could just go back to the isolationist policy of the 1800s and pre-WW2 1900s?
DrDirt
Banger








Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 32 days
Last activity: 6 hours
#5 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.85
    Originally posted by TheBucsFan
      Originally posted by DrDirt
      Part of the reason there has ben little discussion is the economy which has put everthing else on the backburner.


    Eh, they were campaigning for a year or so before the recent crisis, and even then the candidates were more concerned with pastors and flag pins than they were discussing things that actually matter in any way whatsoever.


Pastors and flag pins were brought up by Obama's opponents and unlike Kerry, he chose to strongly fight back.

And the economic crisis started long before this September.

And no, I mean no, candidate will win appearinf weak on defense, especially now.



Perception is reality
TheBucsFan
TheChiefsFan








Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 104 days
Last activity: 104 days
#6 Posted on | Instant Rating: 2.65
    Originally posted by MUTigermask
    Ever wish we could just go back to the isolationist policy of the 1800s and pre-WW2 1900s?


No, I just wish we would force some accountability within a military that wastes more money than you or I can even fathom. There's no reason why the US government should spend spend as much as it does on the military AND still constantly be telling people how scared they should be. If $700 billion isn't enough to make things safe, then what amount is?
Thread rated: 5.12
Pages: 1
Thread ahead: Remember S. Ossetia? BBC reports on poss. Georgian war crimes
Next thread: Wassup 2008
Previous thread: A quick thought about one party rule
(300 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
http://www.usatoday.com/​story/​news/​politics/​2014/​08/​04/​james-​brady-​gun-​control-​reagan/​13581191/​ I remember the day he was shot and how they said he had died, then recanted that.
- StaggerLee, James Brady 1940-2014 (2014)
The W - Current Events & Politics - Iraq aside, little separates Obama, McCain on use of military forceRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.101 seconds.