soaker summed it up pretty good.
but i'll make a few more comments.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mainframe
( View Original Post)
I think the ultimate goal is probably still to bring them all home, but he can't (and shouldn't) just snap his fingers and make that happen immediately. He inherited a mess in Iraq and Afghanistan, and I don't think he wants to do anything rash to fuck the region up even more by pulling out and leaving a power vacuum.
|
people inherit messes all the time. obama has it well within his grasps to be instituting policies to end the overseas occupations of these countries. he campaigned on it. one of his main constitutional functions as president is to be commander in chief of the armed forces. end of story.
we are fucking up the region by being over there! this is the stated reasons of the terrorists that attacked our country on 9/11. what would we be doing if china, north korea and russia had military bases in canada, mexico, oklahoma, florida and washington state? this is the problem. blowback. reaction to our intervention in the middle east they hate us for it.
we are causing more problems being over there than if we withdraw right now. if the policy is bad, atleast try to attempt about thinking about ending it. obama's overall stance is the same as any mainstream republican or democrat. US intervention in to areas we shouldnt be in. whether its fighting a 'symptom' called terrorism in 'stan, in iraq, or going on humanitarian missions that the democrats favor. it is all needless, senseless foreign intervention that the founding generation so warned us about. beware of entangling alliances.
to blame the war solely on bush is stupid. a democratic congress gave bush authorization, though not a declaration of war, to take action over seas in iraq and 'stan. when ron paul suggested that perhaps maybe we ought to think about putting up a declaration of war to a vote... he was laughed at. but this is what is supposed to be done... constitutionally speaking. we havent declared war since WW2. and look. we are still fighting the korean war today!
Quote:
|
Well do you really want a president who simply does things because he can? You're just saying he has the power to do some things YOU want him to do, and doesn't. Good for him, I'm glad he doesn't take rash, unilateral action on issues. He should take other perspectives into account and weigh the pros and cons, since his decisions are very important, and we don't live in a dictatorship. Remember the Ents...
|
first off, if we are engaged in an unconstitutional war, ending it, is not irrational. i dont want a president doing things outside of his constitutional mandates. hell, i think america would be better off with out a president, and if we still had the articles of confederation. the constitution is a gigantic failure in restraining the central government. what i am saying is, if you campaign on bringing home our boys over seas, you dont sent 50K more over there, as well as replace troops in iraq with contractors. im just saying, just like a typical leftist (not to exclude the hypocritical righty, but we are talking about obama here)he says one thing and does another.
the anti war leftist base that elected obama, should be holding his feet to the fire about this war. i even heard that crazy anti war group is now 100% behind obama's war, but when bush was fighting the war, they were against it. why the double standard. democrats like democrat wars and republicans like republican wars.
Quote:
|
I agree that the entire war on drugs should end. But I understand it would be a hugely controversial and probably unpopular decision. Ending federal prosecution of medical marijuana was a long time coming. But our government acts slowly, and other drugs are still a much thornier issue.
|
its a shame that following the constitution is hugely controversial.
but you are right. it is hugely controversial, which is why it should of never been federalized in the first place. then there wouldnt be a central authority unconstitutionally trying to run the lives of 300 million people and what plant substances they can and cannot possess or consume. the 9th and 10th amendment state that all powers not delegated to the federal government in the body of the constitution are rights reserved to the people and the states. last time i checked, there wasnt any thing in the enumerated powers that say the US is supposed to have a federal police force regulating drugs and arresting people who have certain plants that the government doesnt like.
if the constitution were followed each state and/or locality would decide the fate of its citizens. the states that had no drug laws, would attract the druggies and the states with anti abortion laws would attract the christians. no need for a central authority to plan the lives of 300 million diverse people in america.
Quote:
|
Remember, Bush started both wars. Obama inherited a very delicate situation. HUGE difference there.
|
considering most democrats authorized the iraq war ('voted for it before they were against it,' remember) and supported the patriot act and other infringements on our liberty. it just so happened bush was in office when this all went down. obama may of inherited a war, but obama has it within his power, to literally at the snap of his finger, to bring the troops home tomorrow. yet he is increasing fighting forces. so much for that 'change.'
Quote:
|
Well you're bringing a whole suite of preconceived notions to the table here that I can't even begin to address. I'm tempted to say this echoes Fox News, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
|
obama is a socialist. bush is a socialist.
as FA hayek pointed out... socialism in the US means not just governments attempting to take over the means of production, it means egalitarianism at any cost. this means a progressive heavy income tax on the rich productive classes, to redistribute lower non productive classes. vast restrictions on individual freedoms, especially gun ownership. best not to allow the 'enemies of the revolution' have any means to attempt to keep their liberty in tact. it means intervention in the freedom of the market place to attempt to centrally plan the entire economy. socialism lost the calculation debate a long time ago. the great socialist experiment that was the USSR, went belly up. Mises showed how socialism always must fail, and he was proven right. keynes has been discredited in more ways than one can count, yet his ideology rules most economists and government advisors.
i could care less what a corporate media network has to say, although i must admit i'd rather watch judge napolitano on fox, than anyone else on any other network.
"Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself."
Re: Obama: The New George Bush -
11-19-2009, 12:57 AM
