Obama Lost a Chance at My Vote Today...

[Fluffy]

Heya Jonny,
Having read through this thread, your point of disagreement appears (to me at least) to stem from a particular interpretation of the wording used in Obama's statement.

To illustrate with a very extreme example: Lets say I spend £100,000 on a common paperback book. Most people would agree that I had wasted my money. Oh no, I would retort, I have recieved a book in return for my money so evidently, I could not have wasted my money.

In this scenario, I have taken the position that in order to waste something, I must lose without return. An alternative to that interpretation would be that I lose more than I gain. I feel that you have taken the former position whilst Obama clearly intends his statement to be interpreted as the latter. As you point out, toppling Saddam is a good thing. Obama is simply saying that the loss of American life was not worth that and thus America has wasted its troops lives in not getting a return of similar value.

It could be argued that before the war had begun, people expected the war to be shorter, for less allied life to be lost and for much more to be gained. In light of all these expectations being failed, the original judgement determining the war to be worthwhile has proven false and, therefore, the war is a waste or would have been determined a waste had that hindsight been foresight.

You can of course turn around and say "No, I still believe that we got more out of the war than it cost us and so we wasted nothing including the lives of our troops" but that does not seem like a position from which to attack others as "pathetic" since you would have to accept that Obama's logic is solid and the problem stems from a misinterpretation of the facts.

Later in the thread, you say:

Now, how do you think that Obama's "wasted" platform is going to sit with the families of those "wasted lives"? Even if he believes that, he's got to be a moron with extremely poor judgment to come out and say it.

This leapt out at me since at the moment, in the UK, this issue is being called into light. It would be more appropriate to say that the position you are defending has come under a significant amount of criticism. Would you say that what a politician says should be directed by what the people want to hear? That to me, and many others, defeats the point of having multiple candidates and results in a lack of political opposition to the majority party.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

What those death's will mean if we are successful in Iraq:

• A free people who will be able to take control of their destiny in peace.
• The death of a ruthless dictator.
• A country and its people formerly isolated from the world being able to sit at the same table and work with other countries instead of against other countries.
• A former enemy of the United States and the West becoming an ally.
• A more peaceful Middle East.

If thier is too be a "victory," then things will have to change very rapidly. And sending legions of more troops to "help" train the Iraqi troops isn't the thing to do. And how do you even begin to define a victory for a nation that is part of a region that has been at war with eachother since the dawn of civilization? We free a country, and suddenly that country makes many new enemies, such as Iran.
They have killed the ruthless dictator, and that has done nothing but spawn more fighting.

 

[jonny]

It could be argued that before the war had begun, people expected the war to be shorter, for less allied life to be lost and for much more to be gained. In light of all these expectations being failed, the original judgement determining the war to be worthwhile has proven false and, therefore, the war is a waste or would have been determined a waste had that hindsight been foresight.

Honestly, I see it the other way around. I believed that the war would be much longer and that the Saddam's army would fight much harder. To me, it appears that the actual invasion and toppling of Saddam went much quicker than was planned and the US was caught off guard. The dynanics of the war became much different and much more difficult since we were no longer fighting an army. Anyway, what I'm trying to say is that I believe the invasion was planned quite well, but the post-invation stuff was poorly planned. That is where we have been struggling. I wish we could have helped stabalize the country as quickly as we took over. Things might be looking much differently now if that were the case.

You can of course turn around and say "No, I still believe that we got more out of the war than it cost us and so we wasted nothing including the lives of our troops" but that does not seem like a position from which to attack others as "pathetic" since you would have to accept that Obama's logic is solid and the problem stems from a misinterpretation of the facts.

I think Obama is pathetic because he is trying to become the commander in chief of our military and is alienating himself from many of those who he would like to lead. I also would see anyone as pathetic who would stand in front of a dead soldier's mother and tell them, "I'm sorry, but we wasted your son's life" when he had nothing to do with the decisions. All he is doing is second guessing someone else's decision. He has the right to do so, but should use a little tact.

This leapt out at me since at the moment, in the UK, this issue is being called into light. It would be more appropriate to say that the position you are defending has come under a significant amount of criticism. Would you say that what a politician says should be directed by what the people want to hear? That to me, and many others, defeats the point of having multiple candidates and results in a lack of political opposition to the majority party.

Sould a politician say what people want to hear? No, but I disagree with using divisive statements such as the ones that Obama used to try and motivate the American public to support his position. There are better ways to go about things.

 

[jonny]

If thier is too be a "victory," then things will have to change very rapidly. And sending legions of more troops to "help" train the Iraqi troops isn't the thing to do. And how do you even begin to define a victory for a nation that is part of a region that has been at war with eachother since the dawn of civilization? We free a country, and suddenly that country makes many new enemies, such as Iran.

They have killed the ruthless dictator, and that has done nothing but spawn more fighting.

I don't support the troop surge. I haven't been convinced that we are using the troops that we already have in Iraq effectively.

Makes you wonder if Iran was the real motivation for invading Iraq... Luckily, I think that things in Iran can change without a military invasion of their country. I don't want a war with Iran. I'd rather see the Iranian people rise up and take control themselves.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Luckily, I think that things in Iran can change without a military invasion of their country. I don't want a war with Iran. I'd rather see the Iranian people rise up and take control themselves.

I don't think that will happen. I also think as demanding as Iran's president is, the only way to avoid war with them, for now at least, is to leave thier Nuclear research alone, and begin pulling out of Iraq.

 

[kiwimac]

No, we haven't lost the war and I honestly don't care about your opinion on the matter. You don't have a vote.

Son, I don't give a pickled toss what you think of me. But your great and wonderful 'Land of the free' has shown itself to be petty-minded, unwilling to deal with the REAL culprits behind the 11/9 incident and altogether far too willing to elect a man president who in another country would have difficulty getting a job as a village idiot.

So I suggest you take your LDS unwillingness to criticise the President and suck up the pain and death in Iraq, it is after all what your country so obviously wanted.

 

[kiwimac]

So, you dislike Bush. That's fine. How does this make Obama qualified to be president?

Ah, so the opening part of the post went right past did it? You went to Iraq for a lie! A lie that any number of people before the war explained to the American public but they were not willing to listen to the UN weapons inspectors, the US weapons inspectors, the CIA and others.

yes I dislike Bush, I also am annoyed by the US public's willingness to ignore the PNAC-led administration's lies. But perhaps I am expecting too much?

 

[Bishka]

So I suggest you take your LDS unwillingness to criticise the President .

It's hardly just an LDS viewpoint, to generalize the LDS Church and it's members like that is unfair and a lack in research on your part.

 

[jonny]

It's hardly just an LDS viewpoint, to generalize the LDS Church and it's members like that is unfair and a lack in research on your part.

:troll:

 

[kiwimac]

It's hardly just an LDS viewpoint, to generalize the LDS Church and it's members like that is unfair and a lack in research on your part.

I have over 15 years of research on the LDS friend, I WAS an LDS elder. The unwillingness of the church to deal with politicians of the right, whom a great majority of the GAs uncritically support, was just one of the reasons I left.

 

[s2a]

:troll:

Whoa!

'Tis true that beckysoup and I differ often in both personal perspective and estimable rationales, but she is NO forum troll.

You're WAAAY out of bounds here.

 

[jonny]

Son, I don't give a pickled toss what you think of me. But your great and wonderful 'Land of the free' has shown itself to be petty-minded, unwilling to deal with the REAL culprits behind the 11/9 incident and altogether far too willing to elect a man president who in another country would have difficulty getting a job as a village idiot.

So I suggest you take your LDS unwillingness to criticise the President and suck up the pain and death in Iraq, it is after all what your country so obviously wanted.

Um, do they teach you how to read in Kiwi Land? I have plenty of critisizm for the president, and I've done plenty of it in this thread. Unfortunately for you (and everyone else who can't discuss politics without bashing Bush), the purpose of this thread IS NOT to critisize President Bush. Go ahead and start a thread on that if you'd like. The purpose of this thread is to debate whether or not Mr. Obama is qualified to lead our military. I say no.

As for dealing with the "real culprits" instead of going into Iraq, last I checked your country sent its citizens to join in on the fun also. If you're going to wage critisism against the military invasion, please include your country and its citizens in the 'petty-minded' coalition. We might have been willing to elect the "villiage idiot," but you were willing to follow the idiot's advice.

 

[jonny]

I have over 15 years of research on the LDS friend, I WAS an LDS elder. The unwillingness of the church to deal with politicians of the right, whom a great majority of the GAs uncritically support, was just one of the reasons I left.

I'm sorry that politics drove you out of the church. Pretty sad reason to leave, but to each his own. I have never heard the General Authorities come out in support of any politician. If they did they would lose their tax exempt status. They have supported certain policies, but not politicians.

I'm sure you know that one of the highest ranking democrats in the United States, Harry Ried, is LDS. He is the Senate Majority Leader. Also, I personally come from a very democratic family. My grandfather's sister was the chairwoman of the National Democratic Party (the position that Howard Dean now holds).

 

[kiwimac]

Um, do they teach you how to read in Kiwi Land? I have plenty of critisizm for the president, and I've done plenty of it in this thread. Unfortunately for you (and everyone else who can't discuss politics without bashing Bush), the purpose of this thread IS NOT to critisize President Bush. Go ahead and start a thread on that if you'd like. The purpose of this thread is to debate whether or not Mr. Obama is qualified to lead our military. I say no.

As for dealing with the "real culprits" instead of going into Iraq, last I checked your country sent its citizens to join in on the fun also. If you're going to wage critisism against the military invasion, please include your country and its citizens in the 'petty-minded' coalition. We might have been willing to elect the "villiage idiot," but you were willing to follow the idiot's advice.

Actually we sent medical personnel and some engineers. Prime Minister Clark has been very clear that we will not send combat troops.

 

[kiwimac]

I'm sorry that politics drove you out of the church. Pretty sad reason to leave, but to each his own. I have never heard the General Authorities come out in support of any politician. If they did they would lose their tax exempt status. They have supported certain policies, but not politicians.

I'm sure you know that one of the highest ranking democrats in the United States, Harry Ried, is LDS. He is the Senate Majority Leader. Also, I personally come from a very democratic family. My grandfather's sister was the chairwoman of the National Democratic Party (the position that Howard Dean now holds).

I remember being told by my Stake President that you could not be both a labour supporter and an Elder. I opted to support that party that I considered had the better policies but, ah well...

 

[jonny]

Actually we sent medical personnel and some engineers. Prime Minister Clark has been very clear that we will not send combat troops.

You were still part of the coilition.

 

[jonny]

I remember being told by my Stake President that you could not be both a labour supporter and an Elder. I opted to support that party that I considered had the better policies but, ah well...

I'm sorry. Your Stake President should have known better, and I hope that you reported this to those above him. Since you researched the LDS church for 15 years, I'm certain that you realize that that membership in a political party would not keep you from holding the priesthood. I personally have never been asked what party I'm affiliated with or who I voted for. I don't know about your stake, but in my stake we have this letter read at least once per year by the bishop over the pulpit:

In this election year, we reaffirm the Church's long-standing policy of political neutrality. The Church does not endorse any political party, political platform, or candidate. Church facilities, directories, and mailing lists are not to be used for political purposes.

Candidates for public office should not imply that their candidacy is endorsed by the Church or its leaders, and Church leaders and members should avoid statements or conduct that may be interpreted as Church endorsement of any political party or candidate. In addition, members who hold public office should not give the impression they represent the Church as they work for solutions to social problems.

We urge Church members to study the issues and candidates carefully and prayerfully and then vote for those they believe will most nearly carry out their ideas of good government. Latter-day Saints are under special obligation to seek out and then uphold leaders who will act with integrity and are "wise," "good," and "honest" (see Doctrine and Covenants 98:10).

As personal circumstances allow, we encourage men and women in the Church to serve in public offices of either election or appointment—including school boards, city and county councils and commissions, state legislatures, and national offices.

​

Sincerely your brethren,
The First Presidency



Anyway, we are way off topic. Enough of this for now.

 

[CaptainXeroid]

...Anyway, we are way off topic. Enough of this for now.

On this point I think we can all concur 100%!

***MOD POST***​

Keep future posts civil and on the topic of Barrack Obama, or moderation may occur. Anyone who wants to start a new thread instead of taking this one further off topic should feel free to do so. Got a question, hit the PM button. I thank everyone ahead of time.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I think some folks would be surprised just how many U.S. soldiers privately feel the same sentiments that Obama expressed. On duty, they do their job. Off-duty, I've heard some rather depressing stories about their severe lack of resources to do their jobs, the lack of training that is necessary for overseas deployment, and the lack of support from the administration.



I heard one particular base commander tell me in disgust while I was out for lunch with him and his wife that paying lip service to the troops does nothing: "They need to put their money where their mouth is," he'd said.




I'm with Feathers on this one. To say publicly as political figure that lives were "wasted" is a careless comment, but it is difficult for many military families watch their husbands, wives, fathers, mothers, sons, and daughters go to Iraq for their third or fourth time not knowing if any progress is being made over there.



My husband served overseas for over a year in southern Iraq and then moved to Kuwait for outprocessing for the soldiers. He witnessed far more than I'd ever imagined...........especially on his truck convoys .........and we went over there with an initial sense of doing his duty for his country. He came back with a sense - how should I put it - well, let me just say that his comments and criticisms about his tour of duty within the current administration are far, far worse than Obama had stated.



Peace,
Mystic

 

[Fluffy]

Heya Jonny,
Your views of the war might very well be accurate but I only brought it up to demonstrate that a difference of opinion does not justify attacking those who hold a contrary opinion and to show how Obama's opinion could be justified without resorting to a personal failing.

So to that point and taking yours in turn:
1) "I think Obama is pathetic because he is trying to become the commander in chief of our military and is alienating himself from many of those who he would like to lead."
Caving in to the would-be-alienated and adopting a position contrary to one's personal values is surely the pathetic act whereas doing the opposite, holding to and supporting one's position in the face of opposition (ie what Obama has done), is not pathetic at all. It is the chameleon that embodies patheticalness.

2) "I also would see anyone as pathetic who would stand in front of a dead soldier's mother and tell them, "I'm sorry, but we wasted your son's life" when he had nothing to do with the decisions. He has the right to do so, but should use a little tact."
How would you express "we... have seen over 3000 lives of the bravest young Americans wasted"? Obama did not use offensive language nor otherwise express himself in an offensive manner. In fact he showed clear support for the troops by using the epithet and only referenced the matter due to it being relevant to his case.

In what way is Obama's statement divisive? Obama is not causing division amongst anybody or at least it is difficult to see how that statement is calculated to cause such an effect. I can only think that you might mean that it would cause division between those who agree with him and those who do not but then you say the same for any political statement.