Obama adopts a conservative approach!

[Andy]

Well to start a foreign policy that has often times alientated our closest historic allies...

I'll bite... which ally?

...and surrounds the aggressive use of military force towards
"nation building" based on arrogance and ignorance.

There are plenty of others....

And what would you have done?

 

[Andy]

Obama said talk with our enemies and not just our allies. That doesn't mean you have to agree with them on anything or give them anything... but open a serious dialog with them.

After saying he NEVER would... Bush has since started talking with Iran and even the Taliban in Afghanistan.

I don't get it. The Iran talks proved entirely pointless. The end result was they agreed to nothing, and we agreed to nothing. We wasted a ton of time talking, and accomplished nothing. Yay talking!

As for Taliban, I haven't heard anything about it. Were asking them to surrender perhaps?

Obama said there should be a timetable set for leaving Iraq.

After saying he never would... Bush has since set up a timetable for withdraw that the Iraq people also wanted all along.

2011? You realize this is a brilliant political tactic. He made a timetable for withdraw that was so large as to not really be needed, unless hostility flares up again, in which case, Obama will take all the blame for a US loss if he pulls the plug.

Obama said we need more troops in Afghanistan, that we had taken our eye off the ball there and it was the real front of Islamic terrorism in the region.

After saying no Iraq was the main front on terrorism and Afghanistan was not a major problem... Bush (and a laundry list of top commands) have since said many more troops are needed in the Afghanistan/Pakistan region, the real front of terror in the region.

Context is everything. At the time, Iraq was the main problem. Now that we have largely won the battle in Iraq, we can move towards dealing with what's left in Afghanistan.

 

[Andy]

Pidgey,

I don't question what the war is about. I've always viewed it from a stance of retaliation and taking the fight to those who came after us. War and fighting is part of human nature as strongly as love and sex are.

But circumstances have changed. Our Nation is in deep economic trouble. Therefore, I believe that we need to pull our efforts and money homeward.

I pray that we are smart enough as a Nation to be off the oil standard prior to Gwahar running out!!! What do you think?

How do you propose we get off the "oil standard" as you call it?

 

[Pidgey]

I think most folks don't have a clue what that would mean (to be off oil). Gwahar will probably go down far faster than we'd be able to replace the 100 million+ cars operating in the US with electrics, especially seeing as how we can't generate or distribute that much electrical power anyhow. "Work done" is "work done" no matter how you slice it. The upcoming energy policies could very possibly cause a rapid decline in the available electrical generation as well. Heretofore, it's been a policy of "use as much as you'd like that you can pay for" and I suppose we might still be able to do that if you consider that folks will start using a lot less if it were to cost several times as much. Unfortunately, that means a diminishing economy.

I know--lots of folks think that wind and solar will pick up the tab. From an engineering standpoint, the numbers just don't add up, though. Blame Congress and I shouldn't have to tell you who. We either make fusion workable or it's the Olduvai Gorge.

 

[Unite Our Nation]

The best plan that I've read is the one by Boone Pickens... http://www.pickensplan.com/

Have you joined yet? If not, read it and get involved. Write and call your Legislators.

We have more natural gas in this country than there is oil in the world. We need to make use of what we have.

Honda has created a natural gas use car. http://gas2.org/2008/04/29/natural-gas-cars-cng-fuel-almost-free-in-some-parts-of-the-country/

There is a pump the public can purchase for their home garage, but I can't find the link right now.

 

[top gun]

Thanks TopGun. I will read on these further.

I can't say that I'm for continuing the war anywhere in the world considering our economic circumstances. Take care of your "own house first" before looking into others is one of my beliefs. Right now we have an awful lot to take care of in our own house. I'd like to see most funds being spent outside of the States to be stopped or extremely curtailed.

Are you "for" continuing the war?

You make some great points that yes I do agree with.

I think The United States spends far to much money overseas and it's much worse that we do that even if our own country is in severe need.

That doesn't mean don't help other countries and causes but we get into everything from propping up bad leaders even dictators and a laundry list of basically pay off type schemes that really don't help the way they were intended to help.

On the occupation in Iraq. It was a Bush/Cheney deception from the start and we need that occupation to end as quickly as we can get our troops out safely. But we'll still need a smaller force in Afghanistan. Still if we can cut down to one third of what we have now in Iraq for Afghanistan that would be a huge savings.

 

[Unite Our Nation]

Obama said talk with our enemies and not just our allies. That doesn't mean you have to agree with them on anything or give them anything... but open a serious dialog with them.

After saying he NEVER would... Bush has since started talking with Iran and even the Taliban in Afghanistan.


The reason appears to be because of the change to Gen to Petraeus.



Obama said there should be a timetable set for leaving Iraq.

After saying he never would... Bush has since set up a timetable for withdraw that the Iraq people also wanted all along.

Again, this doesn't look related to obama. The Iraqi people and latest negotiation that had to be pounded out is the reason. Also, obama is very disappointing in that he has now changed his stance and isn't pulling out the troops like he said he would.



Obama said we need more troops in Afghanistan, that we had taken our eye off the ball there and it was the real front of Islamic terrorism in the region.]

Things are changing and the need for more troops in Afghanistan has become important, where it wasn't before.



It seems you might be assuming a lot of things that aren't exactly true when it comes to obama. I'll reserve my judgement when I see what the guy actually does.

 

[top gun]

I don't get it.

I know why is that? Are you even trying?

The Iran talks proved entirely pointless. The end result was they agreed to nothing, and we agreed to nothing. We wasted a ton of time talking, and accomplished nothing. Yay talking!

You keep a dialog going because you never know when there WILL be a diplomatic opportunity. Something could happen in an adversaries own political structure that changes the whole dynamic. Plus you look better to the rest of the world and this builds a much stronger coalition if we do have to act militarily.

As for Taliban, I haven't heard anything about it. Were asking them to surrender perhaps?

Well it's been in the news. There's even been some talk of payoffs to certain leaders. There's the poppy trade issue etc trying to lower the threat in some areas.

Obama said there should be a timetable set for leaving Iraq.

After saying he never would... Bush has since set up a timetable for withdraw that the Iraq people also wanted all along.

2011? You realize this is a brilliant political tactic. He made a timetable for withdraw that was so large as to not really be needed, unless hostility flares up again, in which case, Obama will take all the blame for a US loss if he pulls the plug.

I can think of many words the describe George Bush... the word "brilliant" he can't even spell. Fact is Bush felt trapped by his own impotence and could see reality was moving Obama's way. Watch and see how quickly the ball gets rolling on troop removal after Jan. 20th.

Context is everything. At the time, Iraq was the main problem. Now that we have largely won the battle in Iraq, we can move towards dealing with what's left in Afghanistan.

Well the original "context" was a big fat Bush Administration lie so I guess anything goes from the outlook.

Now we are going to move forward and bring most of our great American soldiers home... rotate the others in a caring way... and take care of the ones that were injured.

The new context will be a well thought out multidimensional intelligent plan... truth to the American people & the world... and not a big dog & pony show trying to cover up Nation Building.

 

[Unite Our Nation]

Top Gun, (you know that was my youngest sons fav movie when he was little!)

"That doesn't mean don't help other countries and causes but we get into everything from propping up bad leaders even dictators and a laundry list of basically pay off type schemes that really don't help the way they were intended to help."

Totally agree with your sentiment!! It has always pixxed me off when we prop up bad leaders and sell them guns and such, only to have to send our boys in to take them out!!! Wouldn't you think we would have learned our lesson by now?

 

[Unite Our Nation]

TopG,
Can you explain what you mean by "nation building" in your previous post? I'm not following. (where's that embarrassed emoticon when you need it?!)

 

[Andy]

I know why is that? Are you even trying?

Oh sorry. I completely missed the "arrogant judgmental" obviousness of why talking works so well, even though it didn't.

You keep a dialog going because you never know when there WILL be a diplomatic opportunity. Something could happen in an adversaries own political structure that changes the whole dynamic. Plus you look better to the rest of the world and this builds a much stronger coalition if we do have to act militarily.

Why yes, yes of course! You just never know when a crazy nut that believes the holocaust never happened, claims to want to destroy Israel as soon as he can, and has been evading UN nuclear inspection to enrich Uranium for the purpose of making a nuclear bomb... just might have a diplomatic opportunity we can't pass up....

Why yes Top Gun, I can see clearly the brilliance of your policy. If we just talk enough, maybe we can discuss which Israeli city he'll nuke first so we can send them a love note saying "Run for you lives! Mad man with nuke coming!".

I can think of many words the describe George Bush... the word "brilliant" he can't even spell. Fact is Bush felt trapped by his own impotence and could see reality was moving Obama's way. Watch and see how quickly the ball gets rolling on troop removal after Jan. 20th.

Funny I can think of a few words for you myself. Both of which are in illustrated in the above text. Do tell Top Gun, have you been to Harvard or Yale?

Yeah, and if our enemies pop up and start wiping out our troops because we alerted them to the best possible time to attack, I'll blame Obama, and his idiot squad of robots. You really don't know jack about military tactics do you? There are two times when troops are most vulnerable. When they first show up, and we there are pulling out. Most any idiot who understands anything about military warfare knows this, unless you are a democrat for some reason.

Thus the worst thing you can do is send on a new alert on CNN, that May 13th, our troops will be pulling out that thus easy targets for the enemy. That's just plain stupid, and typical democrat policy.

Well the original "context" was a big fat Bush Administration lie so I guess anything goes from the outlook.

Have you read this Rockefeller report the democrats put out? It sort of disproved your lie about it being false. I love it when the democrat leadership proves their loyal robots wrong.

Now we are going to move forward and bring most of our great American soldiers home... rotate the others in a caring way... and take care of the ones that were injured.

This is a stupid comment because even Obama says he isn't bringing them home. He's going to send them to Afghanistan. Remember? The whole point you just made prior?

The new context will be a well thought out multidimensional intelligent plan... truth to the American people & the world... and not a big dog & pony show trying to cover up Nation Building.

Oh yes. With the democrat version of truth, we'll be defining words like "is" and "alone" again. But with Obama it will be redefining "death" and "quagmire".

Under the last democrat in office, aside from random strikes and bombings of aspirin factories (to take focus off his domestic problems), he also deployed military forces to Haiti, Korea, Rwanda, Somalia, Bosnia, Former Yugoslavia, Iraq (gasp!), Albania, Macedonia, Kosovo, Sudan, Afghanistan and a few more. Of course the one difference is, he accomplished nothing. We still had the largest terrorist attack in ever, after his 8 years of complete uselessness.

For Obama to do better would require absolutely nothing. Literally, if Obama did nothing, he'd beat the last democrat in office, by not wasting lives or resource to accomplish his nothing.

 

[Pidgey]

The best plan that I've read is the one by Boone Pickens... http://www.pickensplan.com/

Have you joined yet? If not, read it and get involved. Write and call your Legislators.

We have more natural gas in this country than there is oil in the world. We need to make use of what we have.

Honda has created a natural gas use car. http://gas2.org/2008/04/29/natural-gas-cars-cng-fuel-almost-free-in-some-parts-of-the-country/

There is a pump the public can purchase for their home garage, but I can't find the link right now.

I'm sorry, it won't work--it's more of an investment scheme and should benefit T. Boone Pickens nicely without doing a blessed thing for the rest of us ultimately. A red herring. That is to say that back-of-napkin calcs don't give numbers that are very reassuring.

For instance, for the US at 20.7 million barrels of oil per day, we'd be looking at 4.3E16 BTUs per year although only a percentage of that is actually used for gasoline. Some is used for fuel oil (like diesel), some for jet fuel--those three components make up about 80% of the total.

Total natural gas production/consumption in the US runs about half that per year in energy content at 21,653 billion cu ft/year in 2006 or about 2.3E16 BTUs per year (Lower Heating Value basis, by the way). Distribution and storage capacity has very little room for more. We now use a lot of our spare natural gas distribution capacity for electrical generation and that's what made the price of natural gas go up precipitously a few years ago--demand beyond capacity.

When it comes right down to it, the diesel component is more important than the gasoline that we get from crude oil because OUR FOOD is distributed mostly in diesel-powered trucks and trains. In that respect, you can consider the gasoline to be a byproduct and the amount that you get when you import enough crude to power your agricultural and industrial shipping needs kinda' is what it is.

In short, we're dependent on crude oil imports to maintain our means of surviving and staying in business. Literally. Cut them back significantly (crude imports) and you've got a logistical nightmare if you wanted to keep us all gainfully employed, fed, fat, dumb & happy.

Else, we're going to have to redevelop rail for distribution because the efficiency is WAY the hell and gone better (you only displace the air once for a lot more cargo) AND we're all going to have to relearn how to live a lot more locally (100 miles would be a very rare trip). We're talking one huge lifestyle change here and it's going to happen, like it or not.

Unless I'm way off on my numbers... it is late after all!

 

[Andy]

Top Gun, (you know that was my youngest sons fav movie when he was little!)

"That doesn't mean don't help other countries and causes but we get into everything from propping up bad leaders even dictators and a laundry list of basically pay off type schemes that really don't help the way they were intended to help."

Totally agree with your sentiment!! It has always pixxed me off when we prop up bad leaders and sell them guns and such, only to have to send our boys in to take them out!!! Wouldn't you think we would have learned our lesson by now?

The problem is, we can't always see that a leader will be bad. Saddam for example was a great asset in his countries fight against the Soviets. Saddam at the time, was nothing more than a "general" type figure fighting for the liberation of Iraq from Soviet control. He was one of many "general" types in the military.

During that time, we supported that military with weapons supplies, in their fight against our mutual enemy, that was threatening us with nuclear war. There was no way to know that after the Soviets pulled out, that Saddam would step up with control of the military to move out the leadership of the resistance, to assume dictatorship of all of Iraq. Nor even then did we know he would be a bad leader, which later became obvious and we discontinued our support of him.

Even at this point, we had no idea he'd start fighting with nearly everyone around him, even to then attack and control one of our allies there.

Would you have known he would turn out to be a mad man? How would you have known? Ask him?

"Hey Saddam. I know you are fighting for liberation of Iraq from Soviet Communists, but after we help you win, are you going to go nuts, take control of the country, gas your own people, open up rape rooms for your sons, and threaten everyone around you in the middle east, and at the same time start pursing nuclear weapons?"

"Why yes. Yes I will."

 

[Unite Our Nation]

Andy,
Yes, I understand what you are saying. That is the problem though isn't it? That we can't tell if we are creating a monster or not. So why not stop giving money and weapons to all of the middle east? It's been unstable since the beginning of time and if you believe in what Revelations tells us...which I do...will be the cause of the end of the world as we know it.

 

[Andy]

TopG,
Can you explain what you mean by "nation building" in your previous post? I'm not following. (where's that embarrassed emoticon when you need it?!)

In the distant past, when a nation conquered another, they would assume control. In recent past, we controlled a nation, through it's own government such as Japan after WW2. We controlled them, but the Japanese government remained intact. We caused reforms of the Japanese country through it's own government.

However, with Iraq, we dismantled their government, yet we didn't want to take direct control of the country either.

So we don't want option one, where we directly control them. We can't use option two, because we wiped out the prior government, so we work through it.

This leads to option three, "nation building", where we have to rebuild their government, and their social-economic systems, so that they can stand on their feet again.

The reason why this had to be done was because if we had simply gone in and wiped out the government, military, and police forces, Iraq would have quickly been over run with insurgents supported by Iran, Al Qaeda, and Syria, which is exactly what was going on before the surge. In short millions would have died in a massive multi-front war between competing forces trying to take advantage of the leadership vacuum.

Oddly, there are those who would actually support this mass slaughter of Iraqis, even on this forum.