So.. she doesn't know what the Bush doctrine is..

[Jaimecbr900]

In an interview with ABC news, who we all know are super duper right wing , last July (right after a debate with CLINTON.... ), Obama said:

"In a conference call with reporters, Obama said Clinton would continue the "Bush doctrine" of only speaking to leaders of rogue nations if they first meet conditions laid out by the United States."


Ummmm, it sounds to me like OBAMA doesn't "know" what the "Bush doctrine" is either......



Charles Gibson had an agenda before he asked the very first question last night. I admit that I didn't really like that Palin seemed unprepared for some of the answers, but Gibson's entire line of trick questions, condescending looks down his "glasses", and vagueness had an agenda for sure.

Unfortunately for the Dems.....even their side is seeing it the same way. Just now there was a report on a radio news station that stated "...the overwhelming majority of callers felt like Palin didn't get a fair line of questions and Gibson came off as condescending and egotistical...." The ironic thing is that just a few of the people I've actually heard calling in to that radio station have proclaimed to be either "undecided" or "for Obama". Go figure.

BTW, the so called "Bush doctrine" is the idea that we, the U.S., need to be able to strike out against others in a pre-emptive manner when the reliable and proper intelligence is there that THEY ARE GOING TO ATTACK US.

I've said it a million times: Why do people expect the U.S. to sit on it's hands and have embassies bombed, citizens murdered, and openly THREATENED by both terrorists and countries? What do you want to wait on? Diplomacy? The same diplomacy that made them hate you in the first place? The same diplomacy that says, "give ME help when I need it, but when YOU need help..... "??? That diplomacy? The diplomacy that says "turn your other cheek....again....and again....and again.....turn over and take it in the butt.....again....and again....and again......oh, and if YOU decide to complain about getting hit in the face and screwed in the a$$ then you are a bad country......that diplomacy???

Whatever. Yall vote for a pacifist all you want. Me? I'll vote for someone that's going to defend me, my family, and even LET me defend myself if the need arises. I'd rather vote for someone that is willing to fight when it's time to fight instead of play patty cake with someone that is openly professing wants to KILL YOU. Makes no sense to me, but if it does to you.....vote Obama.


OHHHH, one final thing to think about that is totally unrelated, but something to think about none-the-less:

IF Obama wasn't a Presidential nominee.......do yall think he would have ANY security clearance? Let's look at that just a half step further.....because of his ties......do you think he would NOT be on someone's "watch list" in some concrete building in Washington?????? Think about that for a minute before you answer.

[AirMax95]

In an interview with ABC news, who we all know are super duper right wing , last July (right after a debate with CLINTON.... ), Obama said:

"In a conference call with reporters, Obama said Clinton would continue the "Bush doctrine" of only speaking to leaders of rogue nations if they first meet conditions laid out by the United States."


Ummmm, it sounds to me like OBAMA doesn't "know" what the "Bush doctrine" is either......



Charles Gibson had an agenda before he asked the very first question last night. I admit that I didn't really like that Palin seemed unprepared for some of the answers, but Gibson's entire line of trick questions, condescending looks down his "glasses", and vagueness had an agenda for sure.

Unfortunately for the Dems.....even their side is seeing it the same way. Just now there was a report on a radio news station that stated "...the overwhelming majority of callers felt like Palin didn't get a fair line of questions and Gibson came off as condescending and egotistical...." The ironic thing is that just a few of the people I've actually heard calling in to that radio station have proclaimed to be either "undecided" or "for Obama". Go figure.

BTW, the so called "Bush doctrine" is the idea that we, the U.S., need to be able to strike out against others in a pre-emptive manner when the reliable and proper intelligence is there that THEY ARE GOING TO ATTACK US.

I've said it a million times: Why do people expect the U.S. to sit on it's hands and have embassies bombed, citizens murdered, and openly THREATENED by both terrorists and countries? What do you want to wait on? Diplomacy? The same diplomacy that made them hate you in the first place? The same diplomacy that says, "give ME help when I need it, but when YOU need help..... "??? That diplomacy? The diplomacy that says "turn your other cheek....again....and again....and again.....turn over and take it in the butt.....again....and again....and again......oh, and if YOU decide to complain about getting hit in the face and screwed in the a$$ then you are a bad country......that diplomacy???

Whatever. Yall vote for a pacifist all you want. Me? I'll vote for someone that's going to defend me, my family, and even LET me defend myself if the need arises. I'd rather vote for someone that is willing to fight when it's time to fight instead of play patty cake with someone that is openly professing wants to KILL YOU. Makes no sense to me, but if it does to you.....vote Obama.


OHHHH, one final thing to think about that is totally unrelated, but something to think about none-the-less:

IF Obama wasn't a Presidential nominee.......do yall think he would have ANY security clearance? Let's look at that just a half step further.....because of his ties......do you think he would NOT be on someone's "watch list" in some concrete building in Washington?????? Think about that for a minute before you answer.

Good response, no sacasm. Your response is definitaly something to take into consideration. We should not sit back and wait, but I have always questioned our tactics and motives in the past. The "cause and effect" theory needs to be taken into account. I will get flamed for saying this, but talking with some sense to people makes a big difference. Being cocky and arrogant can get you into trouble. That goes for the US and every other nation.

The Bush Doctrine is a bully tactic......"hey i think you are harbouring terrorist, gotta attack ya"! I don't think Clinton herself would have continued it, but rather she would be easily influenced.

The "IF" statement is null and void, beacuse IF said ties were an issue he would not be where he is right now. Ties to Bin Laden and Sadam didn't stop the other two now did it?

[Jaimecbr900]

Good response, no sacasm. Your response is definitaly something to take into consideration.

Thank you.

We should not sit back and wait, but I have always questioned our tactics and motives in the past. The "cause and effect" theory needs to be taken into account. I will get flamed for saying this, but talking with some sense to people makes a big difference. Being cocky and arrogant can get you into trouble. That goes for the US and every other nation.

While I understand what you're saying, rationale has never been a terrorist/dictator/enemy attribute. Know what I mean?

World History shows us that sitting back and doing nothing nets you nothing. Look at Poland. Its invasion sparked our involvement in WWII. I bet if they had the capabilities they would NOT have waited for Hitler to march on in. Look at Israel. The size of a postage stamp, yet because of it's military capabilities it has been able to defend itself against much larger countries because it doesn't sit on it's hands when it gets bombed. Look at Vietnam. Even WITH the U.S. help they still got invaded by N.Vietnam. Look at France.....well, France is just France and we all know what that means.... Seriously, sitting back and waiting on "sanctions" and "diplomacy" often times only prolongs the inevitable. Nothing more.

The Bush Doctrine is a bully tactic......"hey i think you are harbouring terrorist, gotta attack ya"! I don't think Clinton herself would have continued it, but rather she would be easily influenced.

See, this is where you and I probably disagree.

The "Bush doctrine" is active rather than passive. I'm all for that. Follow my logic here for a minute:

IF YOU KNEW by a vast majority of the evidence that 9/11 was being planned, would YOU wait to act? I'm willing to bet that if you ask any one of the families of the more than 3000 people that died that day would say "absolutely not".

This is the premise of the so called "Bush doctrine". No more being sitting ducks and REACTING to terrorist threats. The warm and fuzzy world would have everyone believe that is a much more "peaceful" solution. The reality is that neither logic nor words are going to persuade someone who deep down in their core of beliefs thinks that he/she is acting upon their GOD'S command. As has been shown in this forum a million times before during Religious debates, Religion is based on FAITH and NOT necessarily LOGIC. So it's like fighting a fire with gasoline. Eventhough gasoline is cool and wet like water, it's not. Well, "talking" and "bargaining" with terrorists will NEVER work. They truly believe, right or wrong, that they are on a mandate from their GOD himself to KILL ALL OF US for a ton of reasons. Being passive only gets you DEAD with these people. Is that what you want?

The "IF" statement is null and void, beacuse IF said ties were an issue he would not be where he is right now. Ties to Bin Laden and Sadam didn't stop the other two now did it?

Its not null and void at all. Follow my point:

4 short yrs ago, Obama was a relative unknown. If today he were to still be a relative unknown, do you think that he....as an individual citizen....would NOT be on someone's, somewhere "watch list"????

I just read about a guy that is RETIRED MILITARY full blown home-grown U.S. citizen. Mr. Joe poster boy for Americana as there could be, right? Well, because he married a woman, that LATER converted to Islam, he is NOW.....years AFTER he's already honarably served his country....not being allowed by the U.S. gov't to obtain a passport due to the Patriot Act. A simple passport that you or I could probably get without any difficulty. Why? Because somewhere behind some concrete bunkered walled place, someone found some kind of tie between the wife's Islamic church and terrorism. Who knows how those dots got connected, but they did.

So do you honestly think that due to Obama's ties he would be any different? I seriously doubt it. Wouldn't surprise me if he was already on someone's list somewhere until probably recently.

BTW, there is a big difference in having ties in your background and making ties once you get into office. If the President of the most powerful country in the world is asked to be a diplomat and deal with other leaders who LATER turn out to be our very own enemy, it's not the same as when you VOLUNTARILY make friends in low places on your way to becoming a man. One is voluntary and the other is in the course of doing business. That's very different in every regard.

[metalman]

The "Bush doctrine" is active rather than passive.
.

The problem I have is with what some of that 'action' is.

Bush has implemented measures to allow marshall law and suspension of other freedoms I cherish in certain rather vague circumstances...all in the name of "security". I find that whole concept very troubling. FWIW, I find the concept of Obama being president troubling as well.

I have no problem with action...when its warranted against other countries/enemies...I just dont buy the 'sacrifice personal liberty for security doctrine' that seems to be part of the Bush doctrine...or accompanies it.

I favor a "mind your own business and carry a big stick" policy, if you go to war with an enemy you should seek to uttery destroy them more like Hiroshima, not waste lives and money as in the examples of Viet Nam and Iraq.

[4dmin]

The problem I have is with what some of that 'action' is.

Bush has implemented measures to allow marshall law and suspension of other freedoms I cherish in certain rather vague circumstances...all in the name of "security". I find that whole concept very troubling. FWIW, I find the concept of Obama being president troubling as well.

I have no problem with action...when its warranted against other countries/enemies...I just dont buy the 'sacrifice personal liberty for security doctrine' that seems to be part of the Bush doctrine...or accompanies it.

I favor a "mind your own business and carry a big stick" policy, if you go to war with an enemy you should seek to uttery destroy them more like Hiroshima, not waste lives and money as in the examples of Viet Nam and Iraq.

too bad mccain didn't know you wanted to run for VP - you'd have my vote.

[metalman]

too bad mccain didn't know you wanted to run for VP - you'd have my vote.

haha...you'd be the only one!

I should add that I much prefer diplomacy to war. Every effort should be made to prevent war. But once someone has demonstrated that they are my enemy I am willing to kill them down to the last woman and child...or until they agree to MY reasonable and humane terms, much like WW2 Japan. The notion that the brainwashed children of your extremist enemy are not a "threat" is a false one. American politicians should stop asking its faithful servicemen to fight these namby pamby halfassed 'wars'. If you dont want to utterly KILL ALL the enemy you should stay at the negotiating table.

[4dmin]

haha...you'd be the only one!

I should add that I much prefer diplomacy to war. Every effort should be made to prevent war. But once someone has demonstrated that they are my enemy I am willing to kill them down to the last woman and child...or until they agree to MY reasonable and humane terms, much like WW2 Japan. The notion that the brainwashed children of your extremist enemy are not a "threat" is a false one. American politicians should stop asking its faithful servicemen to fight these namby pamby halfassed 'wars'. If you dont want to utterly KILL ALL the enemy you should stay at the negotiating table.

i agree 101% i can't stand the "dimplomatic war" - we don't live in civil war times where everyone walks onto a field and fires face 2 face

[AirMax95]

While I understand what you're saying, rationale has never been a terrorist/dictator/enemy attribute. Know what I mean?

World History shows us that sitting back and doing nothing nets you nothing. Look at Poland. Its invasion sparked our involvement in WWII. I bet if they had the capabilities they would NOT have waited for Hitler to march on in. Look at Israel. The size of a postage stamp, yet because of it's military capabilities it has been able to defend itself against much larger countries because it doesn't sit on it's hands when it gets bombed. Look at Vietnam. Even WITH the U.S. help they still got invaded by N.Vietnam. Look at France.....well, France is just France and we all know what that means.... Seriously, sitting back and waiting on "sanctions" and "diplomacy" often times only prolongs the inevitable. Nothing more.

Here again I agree completely. If there is a known threat we should definately defend ourselves to the fullest extent possible. My concern is the basis of much of our past "fights" were big lacks of commuinication all over. I like the notion of Obama talking to the world leaders, building a positive rapport. Sure it is the "nice" way to do things, but it could work. Now when people dont want to reason or are just set on violence.....

See, this is where you and I probably disagree.

The "Bush doctrine" is active rather than passive. I'm all for that. Follow my logic here for a minute:

IF YOU KNEW by a vast majority of the evidence that 9/11 was being planned, would YOU wait to act? I'm willing to bet that if you ask any one of the families of the more than 3000 people that died that day would say "absolutely not".

This is the premise of the so called "Bush doctrine". No more being sitting ducks and REACTING to terrorist threats. The warm and fuzzy world would have everyone believe that is a much more "peaceful" solution. The reality is that neither logic nor words are going to persuade someone who deep down in their core of beliefs thinks that he/she is acting upon their GOD'S command. As has been shown in this forum a million times before during Religious debates, Religion is based on FAITH and NOT necessarily LOGIC. So it's like fighting a fire with gasoline. Eventhough gasoline is cool and wet like water, it's not. Well, "talking" and "bargaining" with terrorists will NEVER work. They truly believe, right or wrong, that they are on a mandate from their GOD himself to KILL ALL OF US for a ton of reasons. Being passive only gets you DEAD with these people. Is that what you want?

I agree again! If we KNOW for SURE, then we take care of business

I was referring to the Doctrine as a whole. One of the biggest points in the doctrine is that "replacing dictatorships with democratic governments is both morally justified, since it leads to greater freedom for the citizens of such countries, and strategically wise, since democratic countries are more peaceful, and breed less terrorism, than dictatorial ones". While I agree with the notion, Iraq has proven that it is not that simple. The country still can't stand on it own two feet. Some people don't want our theories and beliefs.

Also, the notion that we the United States has the right to treat countries that harbor or give aid to terrorist groups as terrorists themselves is completely understandable, if you have the correct intel and SOLID proof. If the US keeps walking around pulling the "accusation" trigger, you can only wonder when a country/nation is going to call it quits. Many military analyst felt that our approach would cause nations to create weapons of mass destruction to defend themselves of a random invasion by the US. *cough cough N.Korea is not playing, lol.*

As long as we are doing theses proactive invasions, with good intel for the RIGHT reasons, then the doctrine is fine. GW scares me, as does McCain, with their personal intentions. I see GW's goal on the surface, but its whats beneath that scares me.

Its not null and void at all. Follow my point:

4 short yrs ago, Obama was a relative unknown. If today he were to still be a relative unknown, do you think that he....as an individual citizen....would NOT be on someone's, somewhere "watch list"????

I just read about a guy that is RETIRED MILITARY full blown home-grown U.S. citizen. Mr. Joe poster boy for Americana as there could be, right? Well, because he married a woman, that LATER converted to Islam, he is NOW.....years AFTER he's already honarably served his country....not being allowed by the U.S. gov't to obtain a passport due to the Patriot Act. A simple passport that you or I could probably get without any difficulty. Why? Because somewhere behind some concrete bunkered walled place, someone found some kind of tie between the wife's Islamic church and terrorism. Who knows how those dots got connected, but they did.

So do you honestly think that due to Obama's ties he would be any different? I seriously doubt it. Wouldn't surprise me if he was already on someone's list somewhere until probably recently.

BTW, there is a big difference in having ties in your background and making ties once you get into office. If the President of the most powerful country in the world is asked to be a diplomat and deal with other leaders who LATER turn out to be our very own enemy, it's not the same as when you VOLUNTARILY make friends in low places on your way to becoming a man. One is voluntary and the other is in the course of doing business. That's very different in every regard.

I follow you, but this is America. If they wanted to pull Obamas card they would. Now if he DOES get in office and screws us, then I say mail him to N. Korea.