How can you just ignore McCain's foreign policy? He'll continue sending welfare checks to the tune of billions, if not trillions, to foreign nations. Is that really better than spending money domestically? The biggest cut we can and should make is excessive spending overseas, a favorite cause of the Republicans. Are you against paying off our debt? An expensive disaster has occurred, and it's lasted for 8 years. Zing.
Because Obama's foreign policy will be similar. Read paragraph four. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/feb/22/obamas-spending-plan/ See my first reply. Absolutely not. I'm against the mentality that the national debt is due to the tax payer not paying enough taxes and not due to out of control spending. Lets hear what Obama is going to do to correct the "disaster".
The problem is that their is no conservatives running and IMHO their are no more leaders in this country. I've been preachin this for years. MCCain might as well be a democrat in my book, big spender, McCain Feingold, I could go on. It's like all candidates elected the last 8 years and possibly next 8 years are big spenders. It's not going to change anytime soon, depressing isn't it?
The article you are quoting is editorializing, not reporting. Anyway, I believe Obama is more committed to diplomatic solutions than McCain is. I'd rather us not get overly involved in Afghanistan, but both candidates seem to want to continue to involve ourselves in their internal affairs. I have heard Obama say that he realizes that we can't keep spending hoards of money oversees because we need that money domestically, so I do know that Obama recognizes that. Honestly, I trust him to have a more humble and diplomatic foreign policy than McCain would, and I don't think that is a misguided belief on my part. I haven't heard Obama act flippant and condescending, but I have seen McCain act that way on more than one occasion. Lost me. Republicans in general seem more devoted to an interventionist foreign policy and the article you referenced doesn't begin to convince me otherwise. I mostly agree, though I think overseas spending is the biggest issue. Republicans seem very attached to that and claim national security as the reason. The disaster I was referring to was George W Bush and the Republican party behind him. Our nation is worse off because of Republican leadership. The buck stops with those at the top.
Ok, I'll buy your Iraq argument, but why say this? I'm curious to know your rationale here. We've been involved in Afghanistan since 2001 and there was a damn good reason for it. Frankly, there is still a damn good reason for it.
We have a mission to do in the Pakistan/Afghanistan region, which we should have remained focused on. Nation-building detracts from that mission and takes money from both domestic programs and national security programs. If military action was the best route, and I imagine a more focused method would have been more effective, completely retooling Afghanistan should have come second to achieving the main goal of bringing those responsible for 9/11 to justice. Anyway, we were able to take control of most of Afghanistan relatively quickly and with few casualties. We had Al Qaeda on the run and had bin Laden within grasp on more than one occasion only to let him slip through because of poor judgment by officials within the Bush administration. We allowed Pakistan to be a barrier to justice and diverted our attention to Iraq. I find that to be a serious failure on the part of those in control allegedly dedicated to making the US a safer place.
Okay, but you still didn't answer my question. Why don't you want us to get overly involved in Afghanistan? We have a mission there that we are very capable of succeeding at - we already are. Regardless, expect to see more military resources redeployed there in the near future. Iraq is becoming safer and safer by the day. Hell, it's been months since a Marine has fired his weapon in defense at the enemy in the Al Anbar province. Sorry, I'm not meaning to detract from this thread, as it was about tax policies and not foreign policy.
Because I think our mission there is to bring bin Laden and Al Qaeda to justice, not make Afghanistan and Pakistan better, especially at the expense of the stability of the US economy.
Then we're on the same page. It sounded like you didn't want to get anymore involved in terms of military presence.
There seems to be a problem here.... You can't just go in and blow up the joint and not make any repairs, you will literally turn everyone against you and the people will not survive. It is in the interest of both countries to make repairs or make the place a little better for the parties involved. There is nothing hurting the US economy right now more than energy prices, oil and gas and then there is the housing market which has little to none to do with the money we spend overseas. Does anyone know how much money we spend buying oil from foreign countries, I heard its four times the amount of the Iraqi war. Imagine what would happen to the economy if we could drill for oil, mine for coal, we would have an energy boom in this country, jobs, etc. Some would say it would be short term, I don't know, 30 years or so until it runs dry? There are many reasons for the delima we are in but you can't deny the anti-drill people, environmental activists have played a huge role for the mess we are in!
