Obama vs. McCain

[MMM]

Originally Posted by XrachelleX

why? becuase if you keep your enemy on the run, they cant plan any attacks. and if there is no plan to follow, then you just have to sit it out until the right time to blast them to peices. get what im saying?

Who is the enemy we are keeping on the run?

Osama Bin Ladan? He isn't in Iraq.

Al Quada? There was no Al Quada in Iraq until the US invaded.

We are CREATING enemies by occupying Iraq.

Right it's a war on terror. A war on "bad guys". Do you see John McCain ever declaring that war over? Neither do I.

[Yuna7780]

I vote for McCain. I've been raised in a very Republican household, but I'm much more socially a Democrat, but I hold more values and ideas of a Rep.

What I really don't like about when the voting comes is that if you don't vote for Obama, many people would call you racist. People are always saying that if a person likes McCain better. Some people may be going by skin, but I'm not.

I don't remember this guys name... But my dad is always listening to his politcal radio shows and there's this really cool Indian guy who's a Republican governor or something in a state. He is also considered a political "rockstar" like Obama because he too, is very young.

Might I add, there's the fact that there have been so many good and bad Democrats and Republicans throughout history. I don't think that everybody should be ONLY referring to President Bush as a bad president.

[MMM]

Originally Posted by Yuna7780

I vote for McCain. I've been raised in a very Republican household, but I'm much more socially a Democrat, but I hold more values and ideas of a Rep.

What I really don't like about when the voting comes is that if you don't vote for Obama, many people would call you racist. People are always saying that if a person likes McCain better. Some people may be going by skin, but I'm not.

I don't remember this guys name... But my dad is always listening to his politcal radio shows and there's this really cool Indian guy who's a Republican governor or something in a state. He is also considered a political "rockstar" like Obama because he too, is very young.

Might I add, there's the fact that there have been so many good and bad Democrats and Republicans throughout history. I don't think that everybody should be ONLY referring to President Bush as a bad president.

Bush isn't the only bad president we have had, but is probably the worst in modern history.

Anyone who calls someone a racist for not voting for Obama is an idiot. I have never heard of that happening, but it certainly isn't helpful for either party.

[koaku]

I do not understand that very few people here understand that War is a profitable business .... .. lol

In all regions in the world where there a conflict its always for business.

It may be: mining resources (gold, etc. ..) Petrol, water, natural gas ..

Whoever is the new president of the United States, I think that withdrawing American troops will be very difficult:

1 - I dont know if it's true, but after the images that we see onTV Iraq seems to be a country unstable, so if U.S. troops withdrew, a mass of the population in the World (and maybe in Iraq?) will say that american have "liberated" and "abandoned" them

2-The economic stakes .. Why do you think there so much soldier of different nationalities in a small country like Iraq or in regions like the Middle East?
For me two things:
A) Other countries (other than the U.S.) have economic interest (UP)
B) A lot of private companies have investisements on the spot .

So after that our nice new President will have to be transformed into a Commercial-shark and think twice before recall the troops

Here's what I think. But I have a question .. Why nobody talks about people who are happy to be liberated?

[MMM]

I think those are all great questions Koaku, and I wish I had better answers.

In a very controversial move, the PM of Japan sent Japanese SDF (Self-Defense Forces) to act as support for American troops. All in all it was more a gesture of good faith. Less than 3000 troops from Japan were sent, and they were never on the front lines. Thankfully, no Japanese soldier lost thier lives.

This an unpopular move in Japan, and the troops were called home, as Japan decided their troops didn't belong there. The President of Australia has been very critical of Obama's stance on the war, but Obama's response was "If you beleive in this war so deeply, commit more than 8000 Australian soldiers." The criticism soon dried up.

The international forces aren't as international as they were a couple years ago. This isn't the UN vs Iraqi Insurgents, but the US vs Iraqi Insurgents.

You are right. War is business. The American people are paying for the war, but to who? American corporations that profit off of war. The military "contracts out" security missions to private "security companies". You know these soldiers aren't getting paid the chicken feed the US Army privats are. And yet, they aren't held to the same standards as American militia.

[ivi0nk3y]

Originally Posted by MMM

Well with that logic there are probably people that voted for Obama because they think he is from Mars.

My point is that Americans didn't vote for Obama to "appease" foreign countries. There are much more signifigant issues going on at home. Worrying about what other countries think of us is a non-priority to US voters right now.

I'm saying that your generic statement about people voting for Obama to appease other countries is wrong. I also explained that this "appeasement" could be indirect, especially when they are faced with their countries errors. It doesn't have to mean that voters are thinking about other countries and their problems but that they are just thinking about their place in the world.
When Bush was voted into his second term, there was a website showing people holding up boards and signs saying "sorry". Are you saying those people weren't thinking about their place in the rest of the world when they voted or that it didn't at least influence them a fair degree?
Sure it's a different president now but it's still Bush being replaced and I think those same thoughts will still be in some voters minds.

Originally Posted by MMM

I don't know how you can say Obama relies on his color. Black people do not use their color to try to win elections in America. If anything they have to win despite their color. I found this quote from a newspaper that says what I meant more eloquently:

While you shouldn't vote for someone based on color or gender, you can celebrate that gender and color finally don't matter enough to keep qualified people away from the presidency.

*scratches head*
I'm sure I mentioned that he was showing some backbone rather than relying on his colour. I was answering you when you said: "But just know that to even have a black man be nominated as the Democratic nominee is a huge deal in America, and it does show progress and shows the world that America may not be quite as racist as the world often thinks."

[koaku]

Originally Posted by ivi0nk3y

. I was answering you when you said: "But just know that to even have a black man be nominated as the Democratic nominee is a huge deal in America, and it does show progress and shows the world that America may not be quite as racist as the world often thinks."

US Racist?lool Never heard about that..I mean if you compare to other countries..

For me (ok Im black but) its more than "America Show progress..because that THE FIRST country in the world..(without Africa lol) where a Black have the chance to become a President..but if you look deeper its means that for millions of people around this country the color of skin does mean nothing! these people have exploded the barrier of the skin !
Thats why I hope that we'll see Obama as a Presidential candidate and not as the "First Black American Présidentiable" I have not read his program, but it must certainly be more "social" than McCain no ?

Again the United States leading the way, I hope that other countries will do the same ...

[ivi0nk3y]

Originally Posted by koaku

US Racist?lool Never heard about that..I mean if you compare to other countries..

lol if you think about slavery and all the stigma, prejudice, oppression and attitudes it has given society, just within america, then you'd have to say America was pretty racist at a time. In that sense it is a big deal that they do something to right the wrongs of history. I mean they have a "civilised nation" image to uphold, nevermind the actual moral implications.

[koaku]

Originally Posted by ivi0nk3y

lol if you think about slavery and all the stigma, prejudice, oppression and attitudes it has given society, just within america, then you'd have to say America was pretty racist at a time. In that sense it is a big deal that they do something to right the wrongs of history. I mean they have a "civilised nation" image to uphold, nevermind the actual moral implications.

ok lool Then answer to that...Who "made" America? French?..English?..Spanish?..

[MMM]

Originally Posted by ivi0nk3y

I'm saying that your generic statement about people voting for Obama to appease other countries is wrong. I also explained that this "appeasement" could be indirect, especially when they are faced with their countries errors. It doesn't have to mean that voters are thinking about other countries and their problems but that they are just thinking about their place in the world.
When Bush was voted into his second term, there was a website showing people holding up boards and signs saying "sorry". Are you saying those people weren't thinking about their place in the rest of the world when they voted or that it didn't at least influence them a fair degree?
Sure it's a different president now but it's still Bush being replaced and I think those same thoughts will still be in some voters minds.

It's a completely different country now. I don't know if there is too much more to be said. Maybe unconsciously people are voting for Obama to look good for the rest of the world. Consciously I think there are greater reasons.

Originally Posted by ivi0nk3y

*scratches head*
I'm sure I mentioned that he was showing some backbone rather than relying on his colour. I was answering you when you said: "But just know that to even have a black man be nominated as the Democratic nominee is a huge deal in America, and it does show progress and shows the world that America may not be quite as racist as the world often thinks."

Unless I misread you, you said Obama needed to show some backbone, rather than rely on his race, which is what he has done until now.