What's your point? People without money or influence don't have to go to war either.

The whole "kids in the military" thing is silly on both sides. Like when McCain/Palin "send their kids off to war" (as if it's something we shold praise them for), or when Michael Moore challenges congressmen to "sign their kids up for war" in that awful movie (as if they have the authority to do that).

No idea - but it's not like it was his first misson.

Here's a handful of his war exploits from wiki:

-two and a half years of training at Pensacola as a naval aviator
-The planes he was flying crashed twice and once collided with power lines, but he received no major injuries
-By then a lieutenant commander, McCain was almost killed on July 29, 1967, when he was near the center of the Forrestal fire. He escaped from his burning jet and was trying to help another pilot escape when a bomb exploded McCain was struck in the legs and chest by fragments. The ensuing fire killed 134 sailors and took 24 hours to control
-He was flying his 23rd bombing mission over North Vietnam, when his A-4E Skyhawk was shot down by a missile over Hanoi

Also, an interesting quote there regarding some of the critisims of Bush's handlings of the Iraq War:

"In all candor, we thought our civilian commanders were complete idiots who didn't have the least notion of what it took to win the war"

We obviously would still be in Iraq if McCain were preisdent in 2000, but I'm guessing the war would have went a lot better.

So you decided to back up one baseless claim with another baseless claim? There's absolutely nothing to back that up. Obviously, you've altered your argument from 'they aren't even in a combat zone' to 'they wouldn't be there if their parents didn't want them there'. Both arguments fail miserably.

McCain's father actually made the decision to carpet bomb the city that his son was being held hostage in, fully knowing that it may end up killing his son. You want to explain to me how that shows that he had his son's interests as a priority?


He was on a bombing run over enemy territory. I'm sure the North Vietnamese didn't think he was where he was supposed to be.

sounds like he was an epic failure as a pilot. two and a half years of training and he crashed twice AND collided with power lines?? yikes!

You're the one doing all the twisting. OK so their kids are actually in Iraq. I'm wrong there. My second argument is spot on. All you've shown is McCain's dad had an enormously difficult decision to make. Why was he put in such a position? That's horribly reckless.

Situations like McCain's could be completely avoided if we weren't so busy fighting offensive wars as people such as yourself tend to advocate.

Too bad we got distracted from the GOP attack on people whose homes are being foreclosed.

Anyways, that NC poll that showed McCain with a huge lead appears to be a huge outlier, because RCP has a poll from a Republican polling firm showing McCain with only a 3 point lead.

This thread is like the ultimate exercise in futility. Combing two of the stupidest things you can do - arguing on the internet, and talking politics with people you can't rationalize with.

Throw in some keyboard jockeys discussing how the war really should have went while they sit in the comfort of their homes, and what soldiers are epic failures and you have a real treat.

Don't forget the on-lookers taking shots at the "logic" on both sides. :)

I have not read the whole thread but I am still an enthusiastic supporter of McCain.

Sarah Palin warns that war may be necessary if Russia invades another country according to abc news. The 1st part of Charlie Gibson's interview with Sarah Palin will air tonight.

They just read some of that interview on MSNBC, Palin has been well-coached in the last eleven days.

And if you listen to her gubernatorial debates, she was well coached for them, also.

FYP.

Hey, that's just what abc news reported on their website under breaking news so blame them not me.

The odds of Russia invading Georgia (or any neighbor) are SO much lower under a McCain/Palin US.

Even lower than a Bush/Cheney administration?

I'd like to hear the reasoning behind this.

McCain is more hawkish than Obama, by a landslide.

As a foreign trouble-maker, you're much more likely to see Obama as an opportunity to cause trouble and increase your influence.

And I'm not just talking military action. I don't see Obama has being particularly tough in terms on foreign policy, but maybe I'm just confusing him with many of his supporters who would call for unanimous world approval before they did anything.

And I'm not saying there isn't potential downsides to McCain in this context. But Putin would be much more reluctant to invade with a hawkish angry vet like McCain running the show. The perception is that Obama would send kisses and fruit baskets and try to work thing out over coffee. (Though I'd love to see him at least talk tough during the debates, if only to neuter this perception of him in the world, for our own security)

I don't get the impression that Putin thinks on that level.

Yes. Putin knew that Bush/Cheney had already blown their foreign intervention wad for the administration, they're not going to do anything particularly bold for the rest of the term (despite all the liberals telling be a vote for Bush was a vote for an Iran war back in '04)

She didn't seem to make any obvious game-changing quotes, but it was pretty obvious why she's been on lock-down. I'm not at all thrilled with what ABC aired, though. I really hate it when answers are edited. Even under the best of circumstances editing answers changes what happened. Jump from question to question all you want, but candidates should be given their full answer.

Yeah, that's just not true at all and is a complete bastardization of the issues over the last 8 years.


You seem to be suggesting diplomacy can't work. I think that's where our disagreement comes from, and our hawkish current President didn't deter Putin this time. I'd suggest that Putin might be more reluctant because Obama would have more support globally to put pressure on him to withdraw.

Diplomacy doesn't work without some kind of implied threat (either military or otherwise). Diplomacy didn't work for Georgia - because they're no threat to Russia.

If you have a president that's not perceived as a threat, that's a problem

I'm not saying Obama can't necessarily be that "threat" - I'd just like to see that side of him. The way some of his supporters portray him is a little frightening.

Today's National Polls

McCain 48, Obama 44 (Gallup)
McCain 46, Obama 44 (Hotline/FD)
McCain 46, Obama 46 (InsiderAdvantage)
McCain 46, Obama 46 (Rasmussen)

Doubtful. If you take a look at the timing of incidents caused by "foreign trouble-makers" in the post World War II period, you'd probably see the incidence-rate to be about the same regardless of who the American president was. I am not saying that the ideology of the sitting president doesn't matter--but it is vastly overstated...

Considering Russia was right, I found McCain's reaction quite concerning. On the other hand, so was Obama's changing his tune on the issue.

I guess candidates have to pander to American's illogical fears of Russian power that stem from the Cold War.

There were errors on both sides but many Georgian civilians were slaughtered. I encourage you to read up on what happened and you'll learn why Russia was condemned by ALL world leaders.

Trust me, I've read up plenty about it. Check the thread on the subject.

I still feel Russia was justified.

Even the part about slaughtering civilians after the military objectives were reached?

And you're an Obama supporter???? (i.e. think that we should deal in diplomacy but not any other country??)

Does not compute...I'll drop it though

i saw the Palin interview (or a clip of it) and given, I dont like the editing of answers, it seems that she answered the question correctly:

If country X is a member of the union and that member is attacked would the union be obliged to attack...

the correct answer is "yes"

now is it that black and white? no, but she answered the question correctly in my view.

Those two paragraphs read together make it very difficult to believe that you have.

I agree that it sounds like she answered it correctly, but as we've already talked about here, perceptions are what matters. This is a headline I've already sene:

Palin leaves open option of war with Russia

I wonder how that's going to play amongst the voter base.

but i do NOT agree that that is an accurate headline and it is spun. Again, I dont care the spin...spin is bad and the truth is what matters. Its as if the Bizarro SFL wrote that headline :)

No, I agree with you. I'm just saying it could look bad, right or wrong.

Her (well, the GOP) existing base? Or the group of likely voters as a whole (regardless of whom they're going to voter for)?

It'll play well with the hawks, poorly with the doves, and I would hope it would be understood as appropriate by whatever middle isn't one or the other.

It's always an option. Whether it's the best option, a reasonable option, an unreasonable option, or whatever else you might qualify it with, it's still "an option".

Re: Age of death/life expectancy.

You guys were missing the point. The health care provided to presidents/and other mucky-mucks blow the normal charts out of the water. You don't use normal actuaries for presidents, which was all of them since FDR (except for JFK of course) lived or will live to an extraordinary old age.

On the forum for national service, they weren't exactly lobbing up softballs. McCain wasn't being grilled but there were some questions that the moderators pressed decently on.

SI

It's good to see that it's on a neutral site, with a neutral crowd.

RCP just put up a Research 2000 poll that has McCain +17 (McCain 55 Obama 38). Something funky is going on with polling in NC.

Ok, so in the interview she obviously danced around the "bush Doctrine" question and apparently the Dems are going to hammer home the fact that she didnt know the definition of the Bush Doctrine is...

I dont know, that most people even know what it is, anymore, at least on Main Street. I guess her handlers may have missed this one but if it were golf, it would be the slightest slice and the ball still landed on the fairway. If anything I didnt like the fact that she squirmed in the chair when thinking about it but otherwise I think it's silly and I hope the Dems realize that. They probably wont.

Alright but her spin of the comment that she made in her church about the "Iraq mission from god" is absolutely ridiculous. she said it was a repeat of an Abraham Lincoln statement and that she wouold never presume to know God's motivations. Garbage. She spun it and she meant it when she said it in her church.

Im trying to find out if it was a lie when Palin answered Gibson's question about if she'd met a foreign head of state with 'many Vice President's hadn't met foreign heads of state' is true because Anderson Cooper cited Factcheck.org in saying that she was very wrong. I cant find the information to prove her right or wrong, anyone?

She came off as a first time job interviewee IMO. Like I said earlier, I don't think she said anything particularly noteworthy, but she's clearly not ready to handle the press on her own let alone be VP.

Are you fucking kidding? The Russians don't nor have they have cared what the fuck we think. Believe that I am sure they would have qualms calling Palin's bluff and thus resolve on that one.

Like bombing entire city blocks where civilians are? Yeah Russia is the only one in war who kill innocents.

yup, they couldnt give 2 shits who the Pres is...it had much more to do with their speculation on the strength/weakness of our military and the resolve of the American people to go to (another) war at this time.

Agreed.

I'll concede the Russians went too far, but the original scope of the mission and the annexation of Georgian territory was completely justified in my mind.

Perhaps Georgia should have chosen the diplomacy route since they were the ones that initiated the aggression and paid a very steep price.

Being an Obama supporter doesn't have much to do with this. I'm admittedly biased towards the Russians, and I also find Vladimir Putin to be a very compelling figure, for a variety of reasons that work very well for Russia, but not here in the United States.

And I'll also shutup about this conflict since we've discussed it plenty in the other thread and it doesn't have any place in this thread besides my belief that both candidates are wrong. But being right in my mind would likely be close to political suicide here.

You can say what you want, but that was as close as we've ever come to getting into a shooting war with Russia...including the time when Reagan was president, at least according to a golfing buddy of my boss who was career Air Force.

That one must be another outlier, along with the other one just released that had McCain up by 20.

No worries for the Obamamaniacs...McCain mumbled something about appointing Obama to his cabinet today.

One thing that I find fairly surprising is that Obama and McCain are both at about +20 in their favorable vs. unfavorable ratings. In fact, Biden and Palin also have a higher favorable vs. unfavorable ratings. I don't know if this has happened before, but it certainly hasn't happened over the last few election cycles.