Obama says diplomacy, military force go hand in hand

What I don't agree with, and what the post was about, is using your influence as a country to affect another country's future because of business or political interests.

Just another means to an end. The U.S is all about growing and consolidating a power base that is constantly under attack by other countries trying to simply make their way in the world. An unfortunate situation to be sure but one can never be content with being second best...or only a near first.

They just chose to believe in a form of government that was not popular with yours. I can't possibly approve of such a situation.

The world is a complicated and dangerous place. You want to have as many large friends as you can get with a few small easily grouped together enemies. The way you define friend and foe is made simpler by looking at the similarities and differences. In general the U.S tries to maintain ties with nations that favor democracies, have largely individual focused societies, and that are religious. Its enemies are generally totalitarian states or dictatorships with more community focus and are normally agnostic or atheists religiously. The current situation with Muslim nations is the result of a few odd factors that have had unfortunate consequences that need remedy.

But like anything else these enemies are just another opportunity. War is profitable, the threat of other nations make the allies more easy to deal with, and conflict allows us to keep our military in shape. All large nations do much the same. The Russians did it to Georgia primarily to show that they still have teeth and the Chinese do it periodically through muscling around other Asian nations or driving a fishing trawler at a U.S warship.

It’s horrible and terrifying but it is all a game. One, unimaginably huge, cruel game for who controls the biggest piece of the pie. There aren't any rules as to how to get it just different methods. I'm just grateful that the powers that be have been content to fight with money for the past few years rather than get into anything big and loud.

I can't stop defending what I believe in my heart to be just, it's just the way I am. It does make for some interesting debates though.

Indeed.

Calling Godwin's law on that one

You made me laugh, thanks. You are actually right on that and I can't believe I didn't see it myself. I usually never, ever play the Nazi card but this quote was part of a paper I had to write in college and it stuck with me. I agree with your take on fascism but I fear it might be what's possibly (and I emphasize possibly here) going to come to pass in the future. I am sorry to hear about your family's experiences, TheQuestion. My family only had to fight with rhetoric in a safe (more so now than ever) political environment and although my brother is a career military, he is the first one to choose that path in the family.

They strike us we strike back.

Defending yourself is perfectly OK in my book. As my handle shows, I am ready to fight for what I believe in but only if and when I am attacked. What I don't agree with, and what the post was about, is using your influence as a country to affect another country's future because of business or political interests. The killing of millions I mentioned in my previous post was in countries that never attacked the US. They just chose to believe in a form of government that was not popular with yours. I can't possibly approve of such a situation.

If it wasn't my country it would be another and you would be bringing them the same point as you bring to me.

True! And I would continue to hope that by changing one person's opinion at a time would ultimately make a difference. Because you can change things with the one vote given to you by your country. I can't stop defending what I believe in my heart to be just, it's just the way I am. It does make for some interesting debates though.

That said I understand your viewpoint completely, I simply disagree. Where you see weakness I see strength and I see opportunity where others see ruin.

I couldn't agree with you more. And I am sure you and I will continue to disagree for many moons to come. And I am looking forward to it! Like I said, I'd never pass a chance to try to change your opinion and I'm pretty sure you wouldn't have it any other way.

Cheers!

Good quote from Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels. Good for you! Continue using it, please. Here's some help: Lieber tot als rot. It's kind of nice of you to help me with my earlier point: Fascist America, in 10 easy steps.

Calling Godwin's law on that one friend. Fascism is fundamentally flawed as are most authoritarian systems. My family has seen enough to realize the failures of socialist republics and I would, indeed, rather die than live under another.

Well, here again, I am not surprised that you see this as a game. The deliberate destruction and killing of millions of people should really be considered a "game"... Way to go! I guess the only time it's not a game is when it's a couple of planes supposedly collapsing two un-collapsible buildings. Now, that's not a game eh?

They strike us we strike back. They attempt to intimidate a country into submission and only angered it. Religion, economic principles, money, patriotism, all just an excuse to kill your fellow man. Take away those and they'd just fine others.

I really do think that without the negative influence your country has used to destroy/destabilize other budding democracies or other forms of government, the world (not just your country) would be a better place. I know I'll never be able to make you see that point since you don't really want to see, and I can scarcely prove it to you at this point. Sigh!

England used the same at the height of its power, France before them, Rome before them, and so on. No nation attains power without blood on their hands. If it wasn't my country it would be another and you would be bringing them the same point as you bring to me.

About your comment on China, the difference between them and the US is that they, the Chinese, are able to think things through and be patient. Only time will tell if you were right or not.

Patience is their problem. The market changes by the hour (as it did in a magnificent fashion a couple weeks ago) and the Chinese have a real issue with keeping up with the minute to minute dealings. They win the manufacturing thing all around you can't beat cheap labor but finance, not so much. The way I see it, with the world getting smaller eventually the Chinese are going to start wondering why they don't get paid as much as the rest of the world. If and when that happens their massive population goes from their greatest asset to their greatest liability.

But with the dollar the way it is, the US economy the way it is, the level of debts the way it is, the numbers of personal bankruptcies, your unemployment levels, and the coming mortgage defaults, I'm no economist but I would say that you might not have a "next few years". Heck, when Walmart starts closing stores, you know you're probably in trouble. But I may be totally mistaken. Like I said, time will tell.

It's times like these where fortunes are made. Some of the greatest of all time were made in the wake of the forgotten depression. The U.S's greatest strength is the ambition and resolve of its citizens, people don’t come to the U.S for a cushy do nothing existence, they come to work and succeed. There is always wealth to be had for those who really seek it.

That said I understand your viewpoint completely, I simply disagree. Where you see weakness I see strength and I see opportunity where others see ruin. It’s a burden of expectation; my family's home country robbed us of everything so it’s hard for me to look down on the nation that gave it back.

This should help:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_democracy

Taka

I do what I can.

You should too.

Taka

Guess this means I won this round. :)

Doesn't change the fact that you are whining because you are in the minority.

This is rather like a child, saying I can't get my way, I'm wrong, but you suck, neener, neener. Still, it made me laugh, so thank you for that.

The moment you get over yourself and quit thinking that everything has to go your way sailwind, I'll say whatever you want. Even if it's not true. It will be worth it just to get you to let it go.

Taka

Taka,

Obama won could you please telling the rest of us how great he is compared to Bush.

And Peter, you continue to deny him.

Wow. His epic failure finally seeped through so you can't handle being associated with him.

You know, here again, John Edwards was my boy. I can admit that. When he used his wife's cancer to gain sympathy while fooling around on her, I dropped him like a bad habit.

But at least I had the guts to admit my mistake. Those guts seem to be lacking elsewhere.

Taka

molenir,

blah, blah, blah, blah.

Doesn't change the fact that you are whining because you are in the minority.

That is fact.

Yeah, I had USA PATRIOT Act foisted upon me, as well as the order to bomb in Iraq. But you know what, with Iraq, I shut my mouth and did my job.

With USA PATRIOT ACT, I at least had the intellectual honesty to blame the president and the members of Congress as being lazy in their duties.

What happens when you don't get your way in real life? Wow.

Taka

Heh, Bush is a RINO now?

Anyone who claims to be a Republican and favors expansion of government is a RINO. Bush always was a RINO. Considering his fiscal policies, he was far worse then Clinton for example, who was a moderate democrat. Read that how you like. My view is, that Clinton was in some areas, more liberal, and others more conservative. Regardless, he was a better President, even if he should have been convicted and removed from office.

Obama's comparison of not passing the healthcare to that of mushroom clouds over NYC was enough for me to support the bill, buddy. Anyone against the president is giving comfort to the enemy.....heh, sound familiar molenir?

Yeah, and I didn't approve of those kind of things when it was said about opponents of Bush either. Being opposed to a Presidents policies, does not make you a traitor. Regardless of what party you are in.

The very reality that we see in this country is that Americans oppose to Obama's political agendas-- not because of his political platform, but because of his political vision to re-visualize "America" in seemingly an un-American way. I can imagine millions of people in America today are ranting off at Obama's national politics simply because they don't like his 'unconventional' style. It goes against what people see fit to American values.

Heh, Bush is a RINO now?

Obama's comparison of not passing the healthcare to that of mushroom clouds over NYC was enough for me to support the bill, buddy. Anyone against the president is giving comfort to the enemy.....heh, sound familiar molenir?

You guys need to get a grip. There could be another 6 years for you to whine.

Someday, I'll be in the minority again and you'll be getting your way more often, but until then junior camper, you need to realize that Congress voted on everything Pres. Obama has passed into law. A majority of Congress. That's not ramming anything. It's a majority.

Come on Taka, Dems could have every single seat in the joint, with not a single Republican, and if America opposed what they were doing, I would say they were ramming the legislation down the throats of America. Because its true. I've made this point repeatedly. Its not who is in control at the moment, its the will of the people. More then 60% of Americans favor repealing the Health Care bill. Thats outright repeal!

By forcing this poison pill down Americas throat, Obama was acting much more the dictator then Bush ever did. I really don't understand why you continue trying to refer to current make up of congress. Let me tell you, if the shoe was on the other foot, if Republicans had total control, and forced a bill through I wasn't comfortable with, I would refer to it in the same terms. In fact I have. The Prescription Drug Benefit, that up til the Health Care bill was the largest expansion of entitlement spending since the 60s. I spoke out strongly against that as well, talking about it, in about the same language. Republicans passed it, and Bush the RINO signed it.

Molenir,

I've been in the minority before. And I was able to maintain a little dignity. I'm just asking you to do the same. Someday, I'll be in the minority again and you'll be getting your way more often, but until then junior camper, you need to realize that Congress voted on everything Pres. Obama has passed into law. A majority of Congress. That's not ramming anything. It's a majority. You can't handle that. You're like Cartman when Kyle dyed his hair red and gave him freckles. Cartman - "Gawd dammit, I will not be a minority!"

Well....you are. Again. Get.over.it.

Taka

It's really and truly and honestly not all about you. You're just going to have to trust me on this.

Taka

There is no "ramming!" Stop this childishness. You are in the minority. Again, YOU ARE IN THE MINORITY. And in a democracy, MAJORITY rules.

So your response is to point out that for the moment, Dems have a majority in congress. Ignore the fact that AMERICANS don't want what he's pushing, all that matters is more then a year ago, a lot of Americans made a horrible mistake, and voted in a bunch of incompetents and plutocrats, who then proceeded to push through their radical agenda, which the majority of Americans oppose. The latest polls bear this viewpoint out. Check Obamas latest approval ratings, and look for the question, asked of those who voted for Obama, would you vote for him again. Large numbers are saying no.

Going along with your 'point', 3 years from now, when Republicans have a majority in congress and hold the white house, I would expect you to be telling your Dem friends, that Republicans are in the majority, and challenging them, pointing out their mistakes, is simply whining, because of course the Dems lost. And before you go off, with your head in the sand, denying what will happen in 3 years, answer this question for me as well... 4 years ago, you were saying the same thing right? I mean since Republicans had total control, you strongly felt Dems should quit 'whining' right?

Sorry, but despite your increasingly desperate attempts to deny reality by pointing out the current state of the congressional delegation, America opposes Obamas agenda. I can only guess that the reason you feel the need to continue pointing the the present makeup of congress is because you know I'm right. Americans oppose Obamas agenda. If they didn't, you wouldn't hesitate to point to polls showing it. You can't however, thus you turn to all you have, rather then admit reality. This desperation is really kind of pathetic.

Better dead than red.

Good quote from Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels. Good for you! Continue using it, please. Here's some help: Lieber tot als rot. It's kind of nice of you to help me with my earlier point: Fascist America, in 10 easy steps.

thats what you do in this game

Well, here again, I am not surprised that you see this as a game. The deliberate destruction and killing of millions of people should really be considered a "game"... Way to go! I guess the only time it's not a game is when it's a couple of planes supposedly collapsing two un-collapsible buildings. Now, that's not a game eh?

I really do think that without the negative influence your country has used to destroy/destabilize other budding democracies or other forms of government, the world (not just your country) would be a better place. I know I'll never be able to make you see that point since you don't really want to see, and I can scarcely prove it to you at this point. Sigh!

About your comment on China, the difference between them and the US is that they, the Chinese, are able to think things through and be patient. Only time will tell if you were right or not. But with the dollar the way it is, the US economy the way it is, the level of debts the way it is, the numbers of personal bankruptcies, your unemployment levels, and the coming mortgage defaults, I'm no economist but I would say that you might not have a "next few years". Heck, when Walmart starts closing stores, you know you're probably in trouble. But I may be totally mistaken. Like I said, time will tell.

Molenir,

There is no "ramming!" Stop this childishness. You are in the minority. Again, YOU ARE IN THE MINORITY. And in a democracy, MAJORITY rules.

Period.

Deal.with.it.

Taka

Yes, my professors were very much against killing innocent people and truly believed in democracy, which the CIA undermined at every turn in smaller countries when they didn't "fit" the US economical and political interests. How bad of them!

Yes, thats what you do in this game. Pick an country, if you can't beat it make it join you, if you can't make it join you destabilize it, if you can't destabilize it destroy it. Every country does much the same, the U.S just does it better than most.

Yes, the old threat, communism.

Better dead than red.

And, of course, the US won. That's why China has be eradicated, and Russia exterminated... And you are the king of the world.

I would place a firm bet on the Chinese markets stagnating in the next few years. They're growth has been phenomenal but it heavily reliant upon foreign (largely U.S) investment and a large, willing workforce and both are slowly drying up. So they can either radically alter their domestic systems to allow for a vastly more consumer based society (not likely) or they need to slow it down. As for Russia, unless they get their alchoholism thing under control that problem pretty much takes care of itself.

The game is still afoot though. We've got a solid lead but thats nothing if we're not willing to work and bleed for it.

You dip, duck, dodge and deny but the fact is, you are whining because you are in the minority. And talking about unsightly...well whining tops the list.

I'm dodging the facts? Which facts? That I dislike the Obamas radical agenda that he is forcing down the throat of America? That fact? I openly state it. The fact that every single poll says the same thing, that Americans don't want what he is peddling. Truly who is it thats ducking the issue? I said Obama was more of a dictator then Bush, in response to anothers comments, you come out and make a crack about me, rather then defend your 'savior'. Then when I respond by pointing this out, you claim I'm whining because I'm in the minority. This hasn't got anything to do with representation in congress, and you know it. It has everything to do with the fact that Americans don't want what Obama is pushing, and in that, I am in the majority. He is acting the dictator by ramming his unpopular agenda down our throats. Go ahead, try to defend him, this time without the personal attacks.

molenir,

You dip, duck, dodge and deny but the fact is, you are whining because you are in the minority. And talking about unsightly...well whining tops the list.

Taka

President Obama spent a great deal of his time in his youth as a community organizer. He had to deal with a wide dynamic of people with varying opinions and experiences and lead them toward a common goal.

Yes, working as an activist gives him tons of military experience. Certainly prepares him for the real world eh? Heh, so funny.

Hyperbole is Molenir (with a middle name of not-so-bright).

Taka, personal attacks do not become you. Simply because you don't like me pointing out that Obama is far more of a dictator then Bush. Obama who goes around forcing laws on people that have clearly stated they do not want them. And its not just me, better the 60% of the country wants the health care bill repealed. Despite what you may want, thats not a minority. He goes around ranting about the Arizona law that more then 70% of Arizonans support, and well over 60% of Americans overall support. Tell me, who is doing what?

You may hate Bush, and I frankly admit he wasn't a very good President. Actually if you think about what he did to the Republican party, I have a lot more reasons to dislike the man then you do. However Obama has been a disaster for the US from day 1. And we have to put up with the man for 2 more years. 2 more years of incompetence and corruption.

This said about the man who has rammed piece after piece of legislation down Americans throat that it did not want. Go ahead, start with the health care bill and work backwards. Who is more of a dictator?

Hyperbole is Molenir (with a middle name of not-so-bright).

I don't want to have to explain to you again how representative politics worked. Especially since you understood the concept a year and a half ago.

Stop this whining. You cannot always get your way. This is a lesson you, and moreso sailwind, have obviously never learned.

Nothing was rammed down your throat. You are the minority party. Get over it.

Taka

President Obama spent a great deal of his time in his youth as a community organizer. He had to deal with a wide dynamic of people with varying opinions and experiences and lead them toward a common goal.

The U.S. Military is comprised of a wide array of Americans. President Obama's understanding of this dynamic is one area in which he is qualified to lead the military.

So...sarge can now officially shut up on the subject. He has once again thrown his intellectual challenge out there and once again, I showed him for the dunce and twerp he is.

Everyone else, you are welcome.

Taka

You mean like Saddam Hussein?

You must have been happy when the US reversed its policy and removed Saddam, even tho many other countries in the world tried to stop it.

Think proxy wars with the Soviet Union for context.

OK!

You do remember the cold war,the free world and the communist world vying for global domination.

Yes

As much as you may have had a far left wing education that did not do you justice

Well, considering that I speak several languages, am able to think and carry on a conversation or debate someone without acting like a bully, have a great job, have a great family, and a superb lifestyle doing what I always wanted to do in life, I'll say it did me justice. But that's your opinion and I wouldn't want to look as if I am mocking it.

the United States policy of containment of communist aggression was the cornerstone of or foreign policy for over 50 years after World War 2.

Very true. Which is why you were involved in many, many wars and proxy wars.

It at times means the United States did support some unsavory characters at times

You mean like Saddam Hussein? Osama Bin Laden? And the myriad of other dictators that your country propped up? How about popular Sukarno, who was replaced by Suharto? How many people died at that time? What it ten people? No, more like a million. And the list goes on and on... Dictators helped by the US via the CIA, responsible for millions, yes, that's right, millions of deaths.

The word your education failed you in is 'context' the United States is not the evil presence in the world your professors would have you believe.

Yes, my professors were very much against killing innocent people and truly believed in democracy, which the CIA undermined at every turn in smaller countries when they didn't "fit" the US economical and political interests. How bad of them!

But to tell you the truth, I don't need my professors to know what is right and what is wrong. But I guess you do (need help I mean). Because when I put the activities of your country in "context" what I come up with is a picture of an aggressor. Your actions speak louder than anything I could come up with. And I never said evil, but I have to admit that I was thinking more along the lines of immoral.

It dealt with the biggest threat to world freedom and that was communist takeover of previously free states under their one party rule.

Yes, the old threat, communism. The stone altar to which so many have been sacrificed in the name of; what was it again? Freedom? Or should we more specifically say capitalism? Is that really a good reason to kill millions? To make life miserable for untold millions?

And you, calling me a far-leftist, do you even know what that means? You just called me a revolutionary. Or were you just talking about the "American" far-left? Which would be more like an egalitarian, I think? The communist party is not even considered far-left in France. So did you actually mean to call me a person who is left of the communist party?

And, of course, the US won. That's why China has be eradicated, and Russia exterminated... And you are the king of the world.

Well, not in my reality Sailwind. You haven't won anything. You're just too impatient a country to realize that the game is still on. And slowly but surely, somebody else is winning.

USAFDude Works for me.

"We do not consider ourselves a Christian nation" Obama speech given in Turkey.

I don't know of this "nitwit" of which you speak, but we in the US military are proud to have President Obama at the helm for the next seven years. Thanks for voting him in, my fellow Americans!

lol, what percentage of the military voted for him again? Just checking. And for him to be in there another 7 years, he'll have to trick a majority of Americans into voting for a man approaching even Carter levels of incompetence. Looking at how the foreign policy is running, it won't be long til he manages to outdo even Carter.

aday - Obama is a good example of leadership and not a self appointed dictator like bush.

This said about the man who has rammed piece after piece of legislation down Americans throat that it did not want. Go ahead, start with the health care bill and work backwards. Who is more of a dictator?

Any criticism of Obama is not valid in the eyes of liberals. And I see that USAFdude is still unable to tell us why Obama is qualified to be CIC other than a bunch of gullible Americans voted him in.

Good post Sarge!

I think you imagine the US to be this benevolent entity that protects all but you see, many people/countries do not believe it because of its past wars and interventions. Just think Nicaragua, Panama, Mexico, Cuba, Grenada, Chile (with Pinochet), etc.

Think proxy wars with the Soviet Union for context. You do remember the cold war,the free world and the communist world vying for global domination. As much as you may have had a far left wing education that did not do you justice the United States policy of containment of communist aggression was the cornerstone of or foreign policy for over 50 years after World War 2. It at times means the United States did support some unsavory characters at times on the world stage that were adept at playing both sides of the superpower fence to keep themselves in power. Egypt would be a prime example under Nassar, not to mention Angola, Zaire and a host of others who would court the United States then switch and court the Soviet Union.

The word your education failed you in is 'context' the United States is not the evil presence in the world your professors would have you believe. It dealt with the biggest threat to world freedom and that was communist takeover of previously free states under their one party rule.

And guess what........The United States and freedom prevailed.

Sushi: "2 unwinnable wars"

Sushi, are you saying that Obama is going to lose both the war in Iraq and the war in Afghanistan?

Madverts: "Bush Co abandoned Afghanistan"

That must be why U.S. troop levels in Afghanistan have steadily increased since 2001, right, Madverts?

Sailwind,

I think you imagine the US to be this benevolent entity that protects all but you see, many people/countries do not believe it because of its past wars and interventions. Just think Nicaragua, Panama, Mexico, Cuba, Grenada, Chile (with Pinochet), etc.

What you said about Japan and Germany re-arming can also be looked at the other way around. What happens when the US turns into Germany? Naomi Wolf made a good case for it with her article: "Fascist America, in 10 easy steps."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/apr/24/usa.comment

It always comes to a destruction of constitutional freedoms. And then one day you find yourself with a dictator, with a big gun. That's scary. To quote W here:

"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator."

And I highly recommend The Shock Doctrine, by Naomi Klein if you'd like to know a bit more about the techniques used by the US in Irak while its citizens were in shock from all the disasters and upheaval (It also talks about New Orleans to a certain extent). A great read.

Another point to be made. If America did pull out of Japan and Germany those countries will re-arm to a point they feel would provide enough security and ensure a deterrence to a potential adversary.

History has taught us also a re-armed Germany and Japan is really a bad way to go in the long run. The world has benefited from our role as the leader of the free world and the responsibilities that go along with protecting our allies and providing security under our defense umbrella so they can prosper and grow and it still does.

I would love for the Americans to pack their bags from the numerous bases they have in the world but at the same time, I know that they will not do so until they are kicked out.

I wonder if you would also love to see the increase in defense spending those nations would have to do to keep the security they now enjoy under U.S protection for having U.S bases in their countries. Your going to have a very poorer Japan if she has to put 6 to 8 percent of her GDP into her defense budget each year to continue to provide a credible deterrent to China and Russian ambitions in this neck of the world if the U.S left here.

Skipbeat,

You are entirely right and I completely agree with you when you say "imperialism". Actually, in many respects, Obama is continuing what was started by the previous administration. But I don't think he's got much of a choice at the moment.

Obama is working toward US interests, not peace. You shouldn't expect him to do away with those bases because they are totally in the Americans' best interest. Obama needs oil and other resources so that the US can continue its unsustainable lifestyle to the detriment of others. That's not going to change, be it Obama, Bush, Paul or Palin running the show (OK, maybe with Palin, but I just can't fathom what she'd do instead... kowaii). I can just imagine how fast Obama'd be gone if people had to bike, use trains or even walk to work because they don't have any gas to put in the car. That's his reality. The bases aren't going to go.

You and I aren't at odds on that point, Skipbeat. I would love for the Americans to pack their bags from the numerous bases they have in the world but at the same time, I know that they will not do so until they are kicked out. Empires don't last forever, it'll happen, that's just what history teaches us all.

Easy for sarge and associated armchair warriors to forget how Bush Co abandoned Afghanistan to invade Iraq on false pretenses in an orgy of corporate greed....

President Obama at least had the resolve to reinforce US comittment in the country they invaded after 9/11, futile as it often may seem.

It's no surprise at all to see the Obama detractors on this thread are the same ones who backed and celebrated every one of bush's policy failures, especially the ones where he started 2 unwinnable wars and drove the US economy off the cliff thanks to shoddy regulation of financial markets. But as always, to these guys, it's always The Other Guy's fault.

PeaceWarrior: Please, most of those bases were around long before Obama was elected.

You are saying Obama can not do away with them since they were here before he was. Then let's called what it is "imperialism."

There is nothing that says Obama is abolishing Bush's policies.

An excerpt from the aritcle, Holder Backs a Miranda Limit for Terror Suspects, @http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/10/us/politics/10holder.html

The Obama administration said Sunday it would seek a law allowing investigators to interrogate terrorism suspects without informing them of their rights, as Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. flatly asserted that the defendant in the Times Square bombing attempt was trained by the Taliban in Pakistan.

Sarge: The Bush administration never said that Afghanistan and the wider war on terrorism would be easy.

The comment was in reference to the early reports that the war in Afghanistan was won in the first couple of months. At least that's what the news media reported. Then over the course of times insurgents and suicide bombers were a threat to the nation rebuilding. 8 years later...

"The Bush administration may have miscalculated that Afghanistan would be an easy win"

The Bush administration never said that Afghanistan and the wider war on terrorism would be easy.

Here's a link to Bush's speech on Afghanistan just after the start of the liberation of that wretched country from the awful Taliban:

www.putlearningfirst.com/language/20rhet/bush.html

Ah, yes. Taking a stand, leadership! Fine concepts.

Yes, the Irak war, not catching Osama, turning a surplus into a deficit, Katrina, sitting on his behind on 911, outing Valerie Plame, firing federal prosecutors, Abu Graib, etc.

Indeed, Obama as a lot of work to do if he wants to be as good a president as W ever was.

And if there's one thing that Bush probably regrets more than anything is to have said you are either with us, or you are with the terrorists. Or would that be his "Bring them on" statement. Darn, I am not sure anymore. The Bush doctrine and its preemptive wars was the beginning of the end for this C-average individual.

If Obama is working toward peace then all the U.S. military bases are not needed around the world.

Please, most of those bases were around long before Obama was elected. Prof. Jules Dufour has lots of info at:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=5564

seems Obama's pep talks to the troops is grinding a few wingnut gears. Personally I like the bloke, his voice carries well, he's educated and at least he can enunciate long words un-like his predecesor.

adaydream: Hm-m-m-m-m Obama is fighting two wars that were started by the prior president. One started justly because we were attacked, but poorly managed for over 6 years. Then he started a war based on lies and enuendos. I'm perfectly satisfied with Obama. I'm also happy with the fact that he doesn't go around threatening everybody with military actions. Obama's working with our allies to either make peace, reduce nuclear weapons and material and to keep us safe. Obama is a good example of leadership and not a self appointed dictator like bush. < :-)

Bush took a stand, leadership, in going against the norm. Along with Bush, the majority of the people agreed with Bush. After the fact, people are crying foul. The Bush Administration may have miscalculated that Afghanistan would be an easy win. The last 8 years have proven that wrong. When Bush said something like "either you are with us or against us" said it all. That's a bold statement. Depending where a person is on the spectrum of politics, the person may agree or not agree. Europe have different values and beliefs then the U.S. The differences are what set the U.S. and Europe apart. Today the U.S. is becoming a mirror image of Europe. Not sure if that is good or bad thing.

I have not read where Obama wants to reduce the U.S. nuclear power and material. Isn't the U.S. demanding the rest of the world to reduce their nuclear power and war heads? If Obama is working toward peace then all the U.S. military bases are not needed around the world.

All one has to do to "be qualified" is to win a presidential election--dems the rules. Nowadays, the only practical qualification is making money for defense contractors; Obama has risen to and exceeded that challenge. He's an exemplary CIC.

USAFdude can't tell us why Barack Obama is qualified to be the commander in chief because he isn't.

Obama has promised to restore America’s reputation, and he said Saturday that he aimed to do that by forging new alliances, maintaining old ones and helping to shape stronger international standards and institutions.

Our reputation has always been giving out black eyes and throwing money at problems (not that I find any fault with that). Only recently has this practice come under scrutiny when it stopped benefiting other members of the UN. We've never really played well with others and when we're not sending our own troops we were waging proxy wars by funding 'freedom' fighters or pitting enemy nations against each other. So if the President really want to bring us back to the old days of stacking the deck in the U.S's favor (perhaps at the expense of other nations) I support him 100%. If he's trying to get support for more faith in the UN...maybe not so much.

The vote of your countrymen

Popular vote it a courtesy, not a deciding factor, we have no more right to vote in presidential elections than does a dog. The electoral college elects the president.

who will vote him in again in the next election for president.

Debatable, I didn't like either major candidate in the last election so I went with a third party. Maybe more will join me if the options are equally poor. I respect the President even if I disagree with many of his policies.

“We have succeeded by steering those currents in the direction of liberty and justice, so nations thrive by meeting their responsibilities and face the consequences when they don’t,” the president said.

Have Obama studied history and civilization. Also, that must be the reason why there are so many U.S. military bases around the world.

At the same time, Obama said the U.S. will fight to protect “those universal rights that formed the creed of our founding” and will lead by example by staying true to the rule of law and the Constitution, “even when it’s hard, even when we’re being attacked, even when we’re in the midst of war.” “We should not discard our freedoms because extremists try to exploit them,” he said in an apparent reference to policies sanctioning torture and domestic spying that Bush adopted after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

Look back in the last 10 years and today is the statement true today?

The real issue is the U.S. a major leader on the world stage? Only a nation that is upright can tell others what to do. Practice what you preach.

Hm-m-m-m-m Obama is fighting two wars that were started by the prior president. One started justly because we were attacked, but poorly managed for over 6 years. Then he started a war based on lies and enuendos. I'm perfectly satisfied with Obama.

I'm also happy with the fact that he doesn't go around threatening everybody with military actions. Obama's working with our allies to either make peace, reduce nuclear weapons and material and to keep us safe.

Obama is a good example of leadership and not a self appointed dictator like bush. < :-)

From President Obama's inaugural speech: “We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus — and nonbelievers.”

Works for me.

Sarge -

I'm challenging you dwindling Obama supporters to tell us why Obama is qualified to be commander in chief other than being voted in as president.

Being voted in as president justifies to the American people President Obama's being C-in-C. Your "challenge" is ineffectual - you're merely trolling again.

Molenir -

Yep, ready to serve their country, certainly not the nitwit we're stuck with for 2 more years.

I don't know of this "nitwit" of which you speak, but we in the US military are proud to have President Obama at the helm for the next seven years. Thanks for voting him in, my fellow Americans!

"Apparently sarge opposes democracy"

I don't oppose democracy. I'm challenging you dwindling Obama supporters to tell us why Obama is qualified to be commander in chief other than being voted in as president. The man has zero military experience, he opposed the surge in Iraq, which, if it had not happened, would have meant handing victory to the extremists.

"Jihad" applies only to Muslims; President Obama is a Christian America, duly elected by a vast majority of Americans. I'm certainly glad he's my C-in-C for the next seven years.

Except according to Obama, America isn't Christian.

The vote of your countrymen, my friend, who will vote him in again in the next election for president. He's by far a more capable CIC than the dimwit who was in office before him.

First part I agree with. The vote of the people is what makes him the CIC. Of course whether he is actually competent or qualified is a matter of debate. Especially that crack about Bush. From my perspective, Bush was a far better CIC. Obama is either incompetent, or an idiot. Since both of them graduated from Ivy League schools, I don't think either one deserves the term idiot. Meaning Obama is merely incompetent.

Despite that warning, the newly commissioned officers said they were ready to serve.

Yep, ready to serve their country, certainly not the nitwit we're stuck with for 2 more years.

Yes its called democracy Sarge. How can you forget that? Bush was voted in by the people, for the people even though many people didn't like it. Obama was voted in by the people for the people even though you don't like it. Majority wins.

All we have to do is wait and see how things pan out until the next pres' election, and of course future events to determine if what the current administration pushed does us good or bad in the long run.

I like how when diplomacy ends up being useless, then we have to try and brandish our sticks. We humans are such funny creatures.

"What qualifies Barack Obama to be commander in chief?"

"The vote of your countrymen"

That's it? Good grief!

the history books will be there to remind those who forget later

Maybe not in Texas Smith!! With all the changes they want to make to history books, like adding language saying that the Founding Fathers were guided by Christian principles and also minimizing Thomas Jefferson's role in world and US history because he advocated separation of church and state.

You never know, Bush could turn out the be revered by future generations of Texans!

Scary eh?

sarge: "What qualifies Barack Obama to be commander in chief?"

The vote of your countrymen, my friend, who will vote him in again in the next election for president. He's by far a more capable CIC than the dimwit who was in office before him.

pamelot: "Still Bush bashing... This "C in C" has got nothing to offer but platitudes to a graduating class that has more on the ball than he ever will."

'More on the ball than he ever will BE', perhaps? Anyway, you need not worry, people will be bush-bashing as long as he is remembered for being the worst president in American history, and the history books will be there to remind those who forget later.

Still Bush bashing... This "C in C" has got nothing to offer but platitudes to a graduating class that has more on the ball than he ever will.

Despite that warning, the newly commissioned officers said they were ready to serve.

Imagine that.

"The burdens of this century cannot fall on our soldiers alone. It ( they )also cannot fall on American shoulders alone"

Of course not. They will fall mainly on Chinese shoulders.

"the commander in chief"

What qualifies Barack Obama to be commander in chief?

Oops - Christian American, that is.

Badsey -

-it's nice to see the young ones dedicated to Obama's "world order" jihad.

"Jihad" applies only to Muslims; President Obama is a Christian America, duly elected by a vast majority of Americans. I'm certainly glad he's my C-in-C for the next seven years.

Odom said. “When that day comes, when I have to go to combat, I’ll be ready and God will be on my side. That’s all I have to know.”

-it's nice to see the young ones dedicated to Obama's "world order" jihad.