Official Debate Thread

McCain said it clearly even if some of you didn't hear it. Perhaps your father did not give you the same advice when you were a young man/woman. You pull a gun as an absolute last resort. But when you decide to pull the gun and point it at another man, you pull the trigger. There can be no hesitation, no second thoughts, no regrets. That is a luxury you do not have when the gun is out. We are at war. The gun is out.

You decide any other course, and it will end badly for you. War is no different. People that have neither pulled a gun nor had one pulled on them will never understand this, because it is real life experience, not academic. Railing on about the Iraq war as Obama does perpetually, looks fantastic for the history books. Kind of like bama's 3700 national championships. But it doesn't do squat for the here and now. The reality is we are at war in Iraq, and can either win it in the current successful model that McCain advocated before Obama was even a senator, or we can set a pullout date as Obama has suggested, regardless of the situation on the ground. The surge has worked by all accounts, including Obama's, so there is no reason to distract from the current strategy. One that will shortly be applied to Afghanistan.

Winning a war "at all costs", simply means, if you pull a gun, you pull the trigger. There can be no 1/2 measures.


I expect that anyone proclaiming themselves as a liberal, will absolutely not understand this basic premise of human survival. Luckily for you and this country, there are still a few men who do.

 

Don't feel bad. After 3 explanations Obama didn't get it either.

I noticed that as well. It's Obama's arrogance. He shows no deference to those who have been where he wants to be someday.

If I could give you triple reps points, I would. :thumb:

Alas, I must spread it around before giving it to you again.

 

First off I want to say that McCain's constant smirking was bothersome, especially considering that McCain did not once look Obama in the eye or address Obama directly. The whole point of this debate was to have a discussion between the candidates. It seems McCain didn't get the memo and he seemed afraid to look Obama in the eyes or talk with him directly. I saw that as McCain's huge failure. Other than that, I thought neither furthered the discussion. McCain looked knowledgeable about foreign affairs, but Obama stood his own, I thought.

Well, what do you do when some folks you are hanging out with pull a gun out for the wrong reasons? Tell them now that they've pulled the gun they have to pull the trigger?

You say without a doubt that the surge was the only correct solution to the Iraq distraction; I'm not so sure. We're close to the end of the Iraq war now, but we've been close to the end for the entire war. I expect we will be highly involved with what happens in Iraq for a long time. My money to Iraq. Your money to Iraq.

There is no doubt that we are in Iraq now and that we have to deal with it as best as possible, but that doesn't excuse the fact that McCain chose this unnecessary war in the first place. He pushed for the war to be fought smarter once we were in there, which is more commendable than how we were executing the war initially, but it doesn't change the fact that he supported pulling a gun before absolute final resort. Obama will cautiously enter into war, it's hard to say the same for McCain. More than anything else, this is why I lean Obama and away from McCain.

You guys want to ignore that McCain supported Iraq in the first place and say that is irrelevant. In my view, it is totally relevant how our leaders will initiate war.

As for not fighting Pakistan, WTF? If Pakistan is harboring bin Laden, they need to get the f out the way. They've had their chances. What happened to "Thou shall not harbor terrorists?" Does that only apply to punchless countries?

It seemed McCain and Obama agreed on this subject. Last night he was saying that the ground work must be done before the president sits down with unfriendly leaders from other nations. Isn't that what McCain's point of view is as well?

 

Update... I watched Fox and it said McCain won. I watched CNN and it said Obama won. Another accolade in the belt of each candidate.

 

I don't think he does understand the connection. He keeps speaking of them as two wars. But they are part of the same war - the war on terrorism. They are just two different theaters of that war.

 

And what if your pres. is dumb, and he says this war is a national security matter, but it is not?

What was "the national security matter" in Vietnam? Neither Johnson nor Nixon could spell it out clearly for the people.

We lost. What strategic strength of the US was hindered by the loss?

 

Impeach him. Or not. But win the war. Surrender is not an option.

Actually, Eisenhower started it, Kennedy escalated it, and Johnson threw the game. If you want to study a mismanaged national security policy, study LBJ. Greatest failure ever as a wartime President.

But anyway, it was called the domino theory. You may have read about it, but they don't talk about it much on Olberman or Jon Stewart. As it turns out, it was a bum theory. But hindsight is 20/20. And the great hero JFK signed off on it, so the Liberal ivory tower crowd will never really bring it up.

To be correct, we quit. We capitulated. We gave them the game. The North Vietnamese were on their heels.

Strategically, we marginalized our ability to influence that region for decades. We enabled the slaughter of millions of Cambodians. There's more. But you could more easily learn about by reading. I have college football to watch.

Yes. It's an arrogant post. But silly questions make me arrogant. My bad.

 

It's doesn't matter who won. Either way, we'll be stuck with one of them for four years. Well, maybe not McCain since he's soon scheduled to die of old age according to some here.

Chances are McCain will win more states and Obama will win more Electoral College votes. Either way, one will win and claim that the people have spoken when in reality, the winner will have recieved a vote from less than 25% of all Americans.

I just hope we don't have another repeat of 2000. It's amazing how people can find the welfare office but can't figure out how to bunch a very simple ballot.

 

Of course surrender is an option. When the goal being sought is not worth the price being paid, you stop fighting. War has always been a practical endeavor, not an idealistic one. Practicality says don't pay more for something than its worth to you.

Agree. And the US was right to protest the war and bring it to a close. Add Nixon's arrogance to the litany of mistakes. If we were just going to leave, we could have done it 20,000 lives sooner.

That's right, a bum theory. It was not worth 58,000 lives supporting a bum theory, which is why people took to protesting to end the war.

After the war ended, the domino theory did not occur. So, we lost 58,000 dead for a theory that was wrong. We should have never gone in, and should have quit much sooner, as a practical matter.

Example? I think the US has been very influential worldwide, including Asia, since 73. We were also much smarter about picking our fights after VN, and correctly so.

If we had never gone into VN, you can't say that Pol Pot would have not gained control in Cambodia and killed a bunch of folks. Certainly many fewer would have died in VN before Ho Chi Minh siezed power.

There were a lot of bad things that happened in the world, and would have happened anyway if the US never got involved in VN.

What's a silly question? All those questions I asked are legitimate.