Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues The Obama Administration President Obama's military policies

[quote=Ardy, as I said earlier, that isn't what this thread is about but I do realize that I started it with a quote of yours so it's fair that I respond to what you've written.
[/quote]

Olive if you do not want to compare Obama and McCain on Military issues on this thread.... I respect your wishes....

only with the caveat that everyone is aware that I am fully prepared to identify differences between the two men that IMO would make it impossible to blithely comment that there is no difference between them in this matter. In the same way that there were in fact very significant differences between Bush and Gore, there were/are very significant differences between Obama and McCain. And should anyone care to discuss the point, I am happy to do so in detail.

Ardy

Well, it made an awful lot of money for the war profiteers in the Military-Industrial Conspiracy.

They are very powerful people, and they have a vested interest in keeping wars going as long as possible, and destroying as much materiel as they can.

Ardy, thanks.
I'm not trying to stifle you and I'm usually not "funny" or fussy about staying with the topic. I usually like it to go where it will if I start one but the heartbreak of American military policy (to me) both Republican and Democrat alike is what I'm trying to highlight here.
Obama happens to be the guy flying the flag at this time. He gets the heat.

If you want to start another thread about that specific subject...comparing Obama and McCain's military issues, I will participate and try and stay with you.

Please keep in mind that I have stated a lot of times now that there are small differences but the essence is the same to me.

depends on when you consider the start date...somewhere in the 50s or when the first shot was fired?
We've been in Afghanistan 9 years...twice as long as WW2.

Yeah, you go to hell in a different handcart. That's the difference.

There are no Republican or Democrat bullets, napalm, rockets or cluster bombs. The innocents on the receiving end simply feel pain and agony as a gift from America. We can all look to Iraq for a recent and unforgivable example. It was wrong for my country to invade them. We are still there. It was wrong for my country to torture and disappear people. No one but a few tokens have gone to jail. Secret prisons still apparently exist. We are still kissing Zionist butt in the Middle East. America's position on the Gaza flotilla is shameful. Now we hear that Amnesty International has proof that we cluster bombed and killed more innocents - many women and children - than bad guys in Yemen. Apparently the decision regarding collateral damage is business as usual.

I had hoped Obama would be different his actions tell me otherwise. I shouldn't complain, I voted for Kucinich.

Small differences? Bush's invasion of Iraq is a "small" difference?

Olive
there is something about these sorts of discussions that seems to continually annoy me. That is when people say things other than what they really mean.

In this case, I can see that there are certain issues that are very important to you... and you want your voice to be clear in support of those politicians who enunciate your values. Fair enough.

But then the discussion moves from.... "I think this guy is great because he speaks my mind..." ... and morphs into an assertion that there is no difference, or almost no difference between the other candidates.

The fact that other candidates do not share your values does not make them mostly the same. IMO it seems a little peculiar to to say: "People who do not agree with me are mostly all the same... with minor differences that do not change the essence of the fact that there is no difference."

Also, It seems to me that when you add the phrase "small differences"... you are only engaging in a a bit of rhetorical gamesmanship.... you acknowledge that there are "small differences" in order to evade any discussions of what are those differences and how important they may be. You acknowledge differences just large enough to preclude discussion of differences, an yet still maintain that those differences are so negligible as to not alter the essence of the fact that there actually are no differences.

All in all, I find myself becoming increasingly curious about the persistence of references to "no differences.... except those which would not change the essence."

I can see why you would insist on the nobility of the principal of voting for people that you actually agree with. It is less clear why there is dogged insistence on no difference among other alternatives?

How far could we take this prinicpal ? If Obama were running against Stalin and Nader... would you still argue there is no differences between Stalin and Obama... except those minor differences that do not change the essence of the situation that there is no difference between Obama and Stalin?

(Note how cleverly I used Stalin instead of Hitler for my comparison.... )

Olive....
sorry, I know this is not the topic you raised... it is perhaps the meta-topic..... that is a discussion about the way in which you are approaching the discussion of the topic that you have raised.

Ardy, your obsession with differences versus non differences may well defeat me.

The "carry a big stick" policies of both the Republicans and Democrats is essentially the same.
Secret preemptive wars with lots of collateral damage.
Military might instead of diplomacy.

How each one goes about can indeed be different.
You're right.
Is that helpful for me to agree with you on that?

Maybe Gore or Obama never would have invaded Iraq. Who knows?
The American people chose Bush....twice.
What I do know is according to that article, Obama is in 15 more countries than Bush was.
Even though I didn't vote for Obama, after he was elected I supported him and had high hopes for him.
That disappoints me.

So you can focus on the word "different" all you want to, Ardy.
Show me what McCain said he would do versus what Obama is doing and how it would be worse.

I really wish you wouldn't demand that I only have two choices.

I'm home for lunch. I need to go back to work.
Sorry I can't hang out here until later in the day.

Just for clarification, I would say my issue is the distinction between many similarities and no difference.

If you want to say there are an uncomfortable number of similarities... such as yada yada yada.... that is accurate and fair, However an infinite number of similarities does not pove "no difference. A Chimanzee has DNA that is 95%$ similar to human DNA. Those similarities... although large, do not prove there is no difference between a chimp and a man.


IMO this is only partly true.
It is true that Obama has ramped up special forces type attacks around the world. IMO these attacks are quite distinct from a full scale invasion of a foreign nation.

Whether or not such operations can be successful in any meaningful way is an open question.

In general, I agree with the many forum members who have advocated substantially less militaristic foreign policy. My major concern in this respect is that I am not confident that it is a correct policy to ignore Al Queda and their attempts to take over foreign governments and to acquire nuclear weapons.
IMO it is incorrect to suggest that such attacks are the equivalent of a war.

But beyond that, the simple fact is that both bush and McCain tended think that diplomacy is bunk and to easily go down the road of actual war.
Olive
I am not trying to be contentious.... although I am certain it will seem that way. However I think that it is important to avoid clouding a discussion with statements that are not accurate. For exmple it is simply not true that lots of similarities is the same as no difference. And so I am suggesting that we use syntax we both agree is true... IE lots of similarities... and avoid syntax that I think is provably incorrect... IE no difference.
Maybe?
Why would it be any more likely than maybe Nader might have invaded Iraq? We will never know if Nader might have invaded Iraq. But we have no reason to believe that he, or Obama, or Gore would have invaded Iraq.

Yes, he is going after Al Queda in all those places... just exactly like we would likely do if there was some other criminal conspiracy in those same places.

As I see it, the question is whether the US government should ignore Al Queda abroad.

Yes I can understand that
Fair enough
I will start a separate thread devoted to this topic

Perhaps this also deserves a separate thread.

I would like to see some firm, unbiased, unemotional evidence that Al Qaeda even exists, as other than a construct of the CIA.

.

Surely you are joking Mr. Numan