Somes it up pretty well

[P562045]

I think that part of the reason why Obama is just not going "crazy" with regards to both the popular vote percentages and the electoral vote as well is because of what the president we have now has put us through.

McCain is not exactly the greatest presidential candidate ever to run for president and Obama is not running away with this at least not yet.

So people are seeking answers from both of them actually and the reason is that the president did sound so good back in 2000 and also in late 2002 and in the early part of 2003 just before our use of military force in Iraq but what was the result of electing the president we have now. So I think voters are having a healthy skepticism about both of the presidential candidates actually. And as I have said countless times now we have very difficult problems that need to be dealt with in an effective way.

This is going to have to come from the congress as well though. Does the congress have the guts to do things that help as many people as possible or not? Well the answer to this question in most cases so far is clearly no.

I don't really take great pleasure in what I am saying but I also think it is very much time to start really discussing what I have been talking about her because we have got to "wake up" as a people and start paying attention to what Washington is doing again. And don't give me the congress won't listen to the people crap and not do anything. The best example that the congress will actually listen to people is the whole immigration debate in the congress last year. As people may remember many people were upset by this and Washington clearly got the message that the people did not want this particular idea.

But I must mention something about Obama's answers to some questions as well.

Now the second question which really stands out to me for a couple of reasons. And here is the question and Obama's whole answer to the question.

2. In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites -- a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)

The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.

As for the specific question about bombing suspected nuclear sites, I recently introduced S.J. Res. 23, which states in part that “any offensive military action taken by the United States against Iran must be explicitly authorized by Congress.” The recent NIE tells us that Iran in 2003 halted its effort to design a nuclear weapon. While this does not mean that Iran is no longer a threat to the United States or its allies, it does give us time to conduct aggressive and principled personal diplomacy aimed at preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

Now I have several questions and comments about this.

Why would we bomb Iran if they were only suspected targets? I would hope that we would have darn good reasons to even consider bombing Iran. Iran is not exactly a friendly country to the U.S. and the "Western world" actually. The best evidence of this is the Iranian hostage crisis in the late 1970's. There was a brief period that Iran and the "West" were at least cordial with each other. But the "West" started trying to change Iran in very fundamental ways and in doing so the "West" really upset Iran to say the least and some of us really remember what happened at the U.S. embassy in Tehran back then. Does what I just mentioned about trying to change Iran remind people of something else that is happening even as I write this?

Obama in his answer talks about something else. That is getting approval from congress to bomb Iran if it becomes necessary. So let's see I am trying to remember if the president we have now got approval from congress when it comes to the matter of invading the country of Iraq and using military force as well. Why yes the president did. And I think we know the consequences of this and we don't need to go over that again.

There is one other aspect of Obama's answer that I want to discuss as well. Obama also talks about the president having the authority to protect and defend the U.S.. And where does Obama think that this authority would come from if he is the president? It is none other than the federal document called the constitution. Obama also says it if is self defense that if that the president in certain situations should be able to "act before advising Congress or seeking its consent." I do find this rather interesting and the reason is that a little latter on in Obama's answer he says this, “any offensive military action taken by the United States against Iran must be explicitly authorized by Congress.” So there are some situations where it may become necessary to act without approval from congress but when it comes to going after Iran the approval of congress would be needed. Now I know darn well what Obama is saying is actually is very true but these two things do kind of contradict each other don't they.

And another very important reason I am saying these things is my great desire for the people to start standing up for themselves again. And the reason why is so that the things that have happened to us over the last little less than eight years now does not happen again. Time will only tell if what I just said will actually happen but I think that people are so fed up that there is a very strong possibility that it will happen. And the very strange thing about this is that the person that we should thank if it does happen is the president we have now.

[SayOw]

If we would simply have followed the intent of our forefathers, the creators of the constitution our foreign policy would be simple and we would likely have no problems with any other country...

Alliances with no one. Free trade with everyone.

The only reason America needs to be concerned with a potential attack from another nation is because America has meddled in another country's business and any action the citizen's of that country feel they need to take against America is only because America stuck it's nose somewhere where it didn't belong. Almost seems justified if you ask me...

Fabricating reasons to attack Iran to get involved in yet another conflict makes absolutely no sense to me and will only bring even greater backlash against America if we did so.

[P562045]

Originally Posted by SayOw

The only reason America needs to be concerned with a potential attack from another nation is because America has meddled in another country's business and any action the citizen's of that country feel they need to take against America is only because America stuck it's nose somewhere where it didn't belong.

Fabricating reasons to attack Iran to get involved in yet another conflict makes absolutely no sense to me and will only bring even greater backlash against America if we did so.

There is no better example of the first statement than what I was just talking about with regards to the country of Iran.

With regards to the second point. We already have a supposed reason to attack Iran and by the way I think it is a reason that we darn well better be sure that we have justification and that is that Iran is in the process of having nuclear capabilities.

But I don't even want to contemplate the consequences if we do attack Iran with the same sort of justification that we had for going into Iraq.

So sorry for this very "heavy" and thought provoking subject but as I have said we need to start thinking about these types of situations long before we just react to any type of situation actually.

[P562045]

The main reason it appears I am trying to rationalize the reason why the president did certain things is in order to discuss what he did in the first place.

I am trying to give reasons why I think the president did what he did and if it appears that people think I approve of what the president did and was justified in what he did the fact is I think the exact opposite of opposite of what I just said is true. In fact I said the exact opposite. I said there is no excuse for what the president did. And this goes for many things that the president has done and the main ones are going into Iraq in the first place; and taking the people's civil liberties away for solely his own purposes. That is the real reason why I think the president did what he did with regards to the two things I just mentioned. And if people can't handle that then tough. We are not going to have the ability to solve any problems if people are not willing to talk about them in the first place. That is just one of the reasons I am discussing these very difficult matters now.

[SayOw]

Originally Posted by P562045

We already have a supposed reason to attack Iran and by the way I think it is a reason that we darn well better be sure that we have justification and that is that Iran is in the process of having nuclear capabilities.

That is a really weak reason for us to attack...imo. If we begin to start attacking any country we don't like because they may be a nuclear threat you are just opening a can of worms. India and Pakistan both have nukes and what if either of those countries go into governmental upheaval? You then need to start a war with them? And heck, Clinton and his gang sold a lot of kick a$$ American nuke technology (under the table) to the Chinese... it's too bad they are so nice and caring about America or else we would have them to worry about. [/sarcasm]

How about secure our borders, insure our citizen's are safe and free within the confines of this country. We then make it crystal clear to Iran and the rest of the world that if they want to attack us there will be absolutely no holding us back from a complete and total retaliatory strike in which we will essentially level your entire country, plant an American flag on it and make it into a shopping center. Sure, we might subject ourselves to some rogue country 'testing' our threat, but I am willing to bet that other nations would reconsider any actions towards America after they see the full wrath of the American defense department.

[hork]

Originally Posted by SayOw

Sure, we might subject ourselves to some rogue country 'testing' our threat, but I am willing to bet that other nations would reconsider any actions towards America after they see the full wrath of the American defense department.

I'm actually against policies of isolationism. I think the notion of retreating and confining oneself within borders is an archaic and unrealistic ideal.

That said, I don't think it's impossible to interact with the world and yet maintain distance, and I don't think it's unrealistic to address potential threats with diplomatic and/or economic pressure.

However, I do think it's immoral, illegal, and unethical to fabricate these threats and use blatant lies and known inconsistencies to further agenda. I don't think it's asking too much to be honest with the world or at the very least the citizen's of the U.S.

But back to the quoted section, I think that's been the whole problem with this war (aside of the fact that it was illegal from day one) in Iraq. We let civilians (many of whom have never even worn a uniform and the one's who did never bothered to actually show up and serve) run it. If the defense dept and the white house let the folks who actually train for war (read as the military) fight the war this would have been over within a year and would be a non-factor at this point. George Bush did this in the early 90's and we accomplished what we set out to do in days.

And yes, i realize that without this war the GOP would have no platform to run on other than fear and hatred. So I don't expect them to try and finish anytime soon.

[SayOw]

Originally Posted by hork

I'm actually against policies of isolationism. I think the notion of retreating and confining oneself within borders is an archaic and unrealistic ideal.

That said, I don't think it's impossible to interact with the world and yet maintain distance, and I don't think it's unrealistic to address potential threats with diplomatic and/or economic pressure.

I agree. I do not think America needs to totally crawl into a shell and ignore world events...but at the same time I think it is time we reel back our involvement in other countries and get out of the 'nation-building' practice.

[hork]

Originally Posted by SayOw

I think it is time we reel back our involvement in other countries and get out of the 'nation-building' practice.

One might think that the disaster we created after 1948 might have been our first clue to that.

BTW, good to see you around hope all is well with you and yours.

[P562045]

Reading some comments reminded me of something that was said a little less than 212 years ago when George Washington gave his farewell address on September 17, 1796.

The first part I want to quote Washington is basically saying that having two or more political parties is not exactly a good idea and I quote,

"Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another; foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passion. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another."

Then Washington talks about us getting into the business of other countries as well.

"It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world, so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But in my opinion it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them."

Why do I even mention these two passages from George Washington's farewell address? If we would have listened to him much of the mess we are in now would not be a problem at all.

Having two or more political parties tends to divide us and we see that all the time now with the two parties bickering especially during this election year.

With regards to Washington's second notion of staying out of the business of other countries as much as possible. If we would have listened to this Iran and Iraq would be watched from a much farther distance than we our now. And don't think for a second we are not watching Iran just as much as we are Iraq right now.

Of course we have to pay attention to the rest of the world because if we don't there will be even more severe problems than we have now. Now what is an effective way of doing this is a whole other matter entirely. And I have mentioned before that there is no easy answer on how to do what I just suggested. That is just the way that it is.

[hork]

those nations that have only one party are typically called dictatorships or tyrannies.

the idea of only having one party is ludicrous. as much as both would like to think their ideas are the only realistic ones, we need at least two to keep the other in check.

Of course Washington wasn't saying there should only be one party, as the notion of one national party would have violated everything he and the rest of the founding fathers stood for. But I doubt I have to translate his words, given he made them as simplistic as possible and his choice better represents what he meant than my paraphrasing would do.

[P562045]

I don't think that George Washington was talking about a only having one party but he did want to discuss there are problems to having two or more parties and this leads to the very things George Washington was talking about such as distracting the public, causes jealousy between the two or more parties, scare the public, produces animosity between the two or more parties.

If you read what I just said very closely we are living right now many of the things George Washington warned us would happen.

Well persons in certain states it would not take very long for people to see what Mr. Washington was talking about all they would have to do is watch a political advertisement on any subject.

But there is also another danger if the two parties keep wanting to cancel each other out so to speak and that means very little that is meaningful gets done. Now my focus recently has been the present congress but I could go back as far as the mid 90's and say basically the same thing.

So let's see in that time frame we have had a republican president and congress; and a democrat president and congress and what have the real results of this time period been when it comes to our own progress as a country?

This simply amazes me that this was written over two hundred years ago and we are having the very problems that George Washington warned us against this many centuries latter.

[hork]

Originally Posted by P562045

I don't think that George Washington was talking about a only having one party but he did want to discuss there are problems to having two or more parties and this leads to the very things George Washington was talking about such as distracting the public, causes jealousy between the two or more parties, scare the public, produces animosity between the two or more parties.

If you read what I just said very closely we are living right now many of the things George Washington warned us would happen.

Well persons in certain states it would not take very long for people to see what Mr. Washington was talking about all they would have to do is watch a political advertisement on any subject.

But there is also another danger if the two parties keep wanting to cancel each other out so to speak and that means very little that is meaningful gets done. Now my focus recently has been the present congress but I could go back as far as the mid 90's and say basically the same thing.

So let's see in that time frame we have had a republican president and congress; and a democrat president and congress and what have the real results of this time period been when it comes to our own progress as a country?

This simply amazes me that this was written over two hundred years ago and we are having the very problems that George Washington warned us against this many centuries latter.

again, the very notion of having two parties is exactly what the founding fathers desired. it plays right into the way the federal government is set up and is crucial to the survival of any democracy.

Washington knew this full well.

The problem we have is that there are only two legitimate parties.