I wonder if Obama is really up to the presidency. I know he is very bright and all that but things like the atomic bomb development of North Korea and the same aspirations of Iran and the horrible problems between the Palestinians and the Israelis are such overwhelming problems that I actually wonder how we will ever see peace.
He made some promises in his campaign that I actually believed. I guess I wanted to too badly. I thought we might actually get out of Iraq and Afghanistan in the near future. That is such another Vietnam. We have no business over there trampling over their sacred ground. It seems so evident that if we got out of there and quit meddling in the internal affairs of another sovereign nation, they might actually settle down and develop a country. The real experts know that the insurgency is only a response to our interference. We have plenty of skeletons in our own past closet. Look at the debacles of the Native Americans and black slavery. With our sort of history, we have no business trying to tell other nations how to run their internal affairs. What we really need is a united nations peacekeeping force to make sure other nations do not do things like what was done in Darfur.
I'm just not sure Obama is up to standing up to the nation's war machine. Then there's this recession/depression. A student of history would realize that it was not all the spending of the Roosevelt administration that brought us out of the depression. It was the war. Plus, we had enough money in surplus following the Clinton administration to repair the nation's infrastructure but Bush spent that dream on his war.
Now the nation's debt may cost it more then it ever dreamt of paying; especially since much of that debt is held by Red China. What a mess. This is the kind of mess we get ourselves into by warmongering and meddling.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
Margie,
Who would you feel comfortable with as president?
Who do you suggest he/she choose for their cabinet?
I would be comfortable with Obama if he would attempt to keep his campaign promises. I guess I'm too idealistic. I expect that.
Anyone who really thinks we're going to leave Iraq and Afghanistan does not understand our foreign policy. Presidential candidates can promise the moon, but when they become president, they are advised by the people who really run our government and if they protest too much, they are probably told what really happened to JFK. That keeps them in line.
You can quote me...we are in Iraq until we pump the last bit of oil from their sand. And we will be in Afghanistan for the next generation. We paid too deep a price to get rid of the Taliban and if we leave, the Taliban will most likely return to power.
Surely you didn't think he could bring the troops home within three months, did you? I believe we will have a presence in Iraq for a long time, and maybe Afghanistan, too, but in the same way that we are a presence in Korea and even Vietnam.
Everything he has done is something he said he would do during his campaign, so far. I might change my mind about him when he starts messing with Social Security, but, so far, so good, I think.
I seldom look back to campaign promises. I understand they campaign in poetry and govern in prose. That first briefing after the election must be a doosey. That's when they learn all the stuff they've be promising is not going to happen.
I've never thought we would get out of Iraq. There was no exit strategy because they never planned to exit. I agree with Sansego. We're there to stay.
Democrats made fun of McCain for saying Americans wouldn't care if we stayed 100 years as long as our soldiers are not in combat getting killed. He was right. We're there to stay. The best we can hope for is to get our soldiers out of combat, but we'll have a presence there for a very long time.
What you folks don't seem to understand is this situation is different. These folks mix their politics with their religion. We are over there on their Holy Ground and they will not give up until we're gone. How long did the Soviets try to win in Afghanistan? The terrain is impossible and this is a guerrilla war.
We need to get out while the getting is good.
Margie, I'm with you on this one The "who would you rather have" question is moot. We have Obama and have to live with him. One tends to vote on campaign promises. Then reality trumps campaigning. I personally did not vote for him to remake the entire country into his "vision". I voted for him to end partisanship and get the country moving again with the least amount of government intervention - not the most.
Would you be more comfortable with John McCain, Sarah Palin, and Phil Gramm?
I don't see them bringing the troops home, and Phil Gramm has been listed in one of the news magazines as the #1 person to blame for the recession. I don't see him bringing us out of the recession.
No, I voted for Obama. I just expect him to eventually keep his campaign promises or I won't be voting for him again.
There is no one else I would vote for except Hillary.
Does that mean you'll vote for Mitt Romney in 2012? I believe he's still the most likely candidate the GOP will nominate to lead their party to yet another devastating defeat. And he'll have Jeb Bush on his ticket.
Would you rather Obama get JFK'd for getting us out of Iraq, thus leaving that country to Iranian influence? As well as a resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan?
The only solution is to internationalize the conflict with UN Peacekeeping forces, like in Bosnia (we're still there, too).
Mitt Romney would be the last person I would vote for.
Margie:
You idealists keep us realists off our backsides and moving forward. A hard job. But not a bad one.
FireTag
Post a Comment