News John McCain: The Real Story | YouTube Video

[Cyrus]

I don't hear anyone talking about McCain's military training, knowledge and experience.

Anyone can pull out of Iraq...walk away from all of the $ Billions (certainly wouldn't be the first time) and leave our companies and the new leadership to defend themselves...they should have been paying ($10 B/mos) for protection for the last year or 2 anyway. I'm sure they have contingency plans. They certainly have resources.

The biggest mistake in Iraq AND by far the stupidest thing I ever heard (really) was that our National Guard troops would be sent to Iraq on long deployments...IDIOTIC!

I think Bush's logic was that we needed peacekeepers...not warriors? People who would not shoot first...parents (not their 18 yr old children), professional people who are more even tempered...WE STAFFED A WAR ZONE WITH NON-COMBAT TROOPS and HEAD of HOUSEHOLD PROVIDERS. How many of the deaths in Iraq have been National Guard troops?

In the good old days people (Bush for one) joined the Guard to avoid having to go to war. In the back of my mind I've long thought Bush might be justifying/enhancing his own service...is that possible?

These good/hard working people SHOULD NEVER have been sent there. The National Guard has an important role...it's not overseas deployment...think Homeland Security.

Back to Iraq, we can always send special forces back to deal with isolated situations. Okay, I GET IT, Iraq can be solved...by either candidate.

But, moving forward...we need someone who has a solid framework of what to do (based on training) and will listen to the RIGHT advisers...someone who can't be BS'd about war (remember Johnson and Nixon re war management?). Not a good place to learn on the job...never good for our troops either.

McCain (the son and grandson of Admirals, Naval Academy, Vietnam) is experienced, HE IS NOT.>>>.BUSH (father had experience, but National Guard was his experience) and...(like Clinton) Obama has NO personal military experience.

The reality is the terrorist groups will NEVER give up (ask W. Europe)...THIS WILL NEVER END...Bush made sure of that...and forget about diplomacy.

Iran is a hot spot, Syria (who knows), Africa has open conflicts, Russia is re-establishing it's regional control, Korea is a concern, and Israel becomes more vulnerable to long range attack every year.

With all of that as a backdrop...we have troops in Afghanistan and border incidents with (politically unstable) Nuclear Pakistan (India next?). If I was a terrorist on the run...I'd cross into a neutral country for safety...then cross the border to attack and retreat to a safe place (remember Cambodia and Laos?). History tells us it's hard to defend without expanding the conflict.

Everyone seems to agree Afghanistan is the best front to fight Al Quaida, but remember Russia's experience there? Wasn't good...and let's not forget our "dabbling" in that conflict...they haven't forgotten. Last...look at a map...we're pretty close to China again too.

Our next President better have a very good handle on WAR. Talk is fine when you're selling a product/getting elected...but tough talk and inexperience will get you beat up publicly most every time.

The only way to slow global terrorist recruiting is to 1.) try not re-invigorate them/motivate/impassion them to a cause and, 2.) make the job of being a terrorist unattractive - not something they can see themselves doing...at least not when it involves us, and 3.) give them a reason to want/need to do something else.

Anarchy doesn't work...for most people.

I like to use images...you don't see domestic street gangs (the street terrorists - drug dealers who shoot each other in drive-by's) now expanding into armed robberies of banks and WalMarts.

Why?

Probably because it would drastically change the rules of our engagement with them. They know their limits and operate safely within the comfort of our legal system. Armed bank robberies often result in shootouts and death...the public doesn't usually care if the Police shoot an armed bank robber.

It used to be a mistake for terrorists to target American soil. They started with soft targets around the world...then followed our domestic terrorists lead and tried to blow up the WTC...failed and made sure the next attempt wouldn't. That tells me the next attempt will be a real WMD.

I personally want the best military leaders we can find...on the job. McCain is the best choice for this reason...everything else is opinion and talk.

I'm sorry. McCain was a naval aviator. That has *nothing* to do with the knowledge of a general in how to lead a war. Your agument is disparate at best, and ignorant at worst.

 

[WhoWee]

Maybe Biden really wouldn't change any of Obama's outlined plans if something happened? They appear to know each other rather well.

 

[WhoWee]

Why don't you read (?General?) Obama's resume again...then re-argue the point..."ignorant at worst"...back at you.

 

[Cyrus]

Why don't you read (?General?) Obama's resume again...then re-argue the point..."ignorant at worst"...back at you.

Why don't you make a valid point?

What do I care about his resume? McCain clearly has *no* resume that says he's a military strategist either.

One was in the military, the other was not. Neither had any experience as a commander (like petraeus for example).

You have no argument.


I would also take the time to learn the duties of the national guard. Historically, they have been called to duty to fight in wars overseas. It's a branch of the miltary. They don't just put sand bags out when a flood is coming.

They were called to duty because they were all out of enlisted troops.

 

[WhoWee]

Are you really going to summarize McCain's entire educational background and 22 years of military experience this way...then dismiss it as not relevant...in comparison to Obama's experience?

 

[Cyrus]

Are you really going to summarize McCain's entire educational background and 22 years of military experience this way...then dismiss it as not relevant...in comparison to Obama's experience?

You really don't seem to comprehend the fact that flying an airplane does not mean you lead ground troops in a campaign.


Again, make a valid point.


*Note: stop crying to me about obama. I don't care about obama. I never said he has an experience either. Neither of them do. Stop bring this up.

 

[B. Elliott]

You don't want to hear about it. McCain was the bottom 5th of his class and made it out with some strings pull. McCain crashed more air craft then George Bush by margin of 5-0. Those weren't John's brightest days.

McCain would likely to run any war into ground, the way he is doing with his campaign. If he can't his manage his own staffs, he is not fit to lead the country.

It's also fun to watch Biden, the senate foreign relation chair, schools him on the difference between tactic and strategy after the first debate. It would had been a bloodbath if these two have a debate on foreign policy.

The crashes happened over a period of nine years. Two of those crashes weren't even remotely his fault, and a third is still questionable due to lack of information. Only two can definitely be said it was due to error on his part.

Biden also definitely has his moments exactly like Palin...

Biden, FDR and the Invention of Television

Biden told Couric: “When the stock market crashed, Franklin D. Roosevelt got on the television and didn’t just talk about the, you know, the princes of greed.”

There are several things wrong with that statement. First, the stock market crashed in 1929. FDR wasn’t the president; Herbert Hoover was. He served as president from 1929 until 1933, when Roosevelt, who went on to be elected to the top office four times, was inaugurated to his first term.

Second, if FDR had been president in 1929 and wanted to make a public statement on the state of the economy, it likely wouldn’t have aired on television. Because no one had a television yet. The TV was introduced to the public at the 1939 World’s Fair in New York, almost 10 years after the crash.

http://wire.factcheck.org/2008/09/24/biden-fdr-and-the-invention-of-television/

Funny how the media is quick to point out Palins mistakes, yet you rarely every hear of 'screwups' such as this.

 

[Cyrus]

The crashes happened over a period of nine years. Two of those crashes weren't even remotely his fault, and a third is still questionable due to lack of information. Only two can definitely be said it was due to error on his part.

Biden also definitely has his moments exactly like Palin...

Biden, FDR and the Invention of Television



http://wire.factcheck.org/2008/09/24/biden-fdr-and-the-invention-of-television/

Funny how the media is quick to point out Palins mistakes, yet you rarely every hear of 'screwups' such as this.

'Moments like palin'? ......No.

I agree his pretending to know history in your quote is clearly wrong. That's not nearly on the same level as not being able to say what newspapers you read daily, or what you think about the bush doctrine (and know know what it is).

It's not that she got something factually wrong. It's the magnitude of what she can't answer and how it's todays issues.

 

[WhoWee]

Cyrus,

Did you even read my post...the long one you quoted?

My point was that McCain has more military experience than Obama...that's why I keep "crying" about Obama.

Obama said he wants to increase activities in Afghanistan and Pakistan...I don't think he has enough experience to even suggest a WAR strategy.

 

[B. Elliott]

'Moments like palin'? ......No.

I agree his pretending to know history in your quote is clearly wrong. That's not nearly on the same level as not being able to say what newspapers you read daily, or what you think about the bush doctrine (and know know what it is).

It's not that she got something factually wrong. It's the magnitude of what she can't answer and how it's todays issues.

I find it funny because the facts that he got wrong took place was only ~ten years before he was born! That would be like kids today saying Clinton was in office when 911 took place... it was The Great Depression! lol.

Biden isn't a shining star...

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/factchecking_biden-palin_debate.html

 

[WarPhalange]

And Cyrus keeps saying that Military experience =/= foreign relation experience.

 

[Astronuc]

And Cyrus keeps saying that Military experience =/= foreign relation experience.

Military experience does not necessarily equate with foreign relations experience, and McCain does not necessarily have more foreign relation experience than Obama.

Anyway, it will be interesting to see what happens with the Smear Wars: Welcome to Negative Ad Season
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1844542,00.html

 

[Cyrus]

Cyrus,

Did you even read my post...the long one you quoted?

My point was that McCain has more military experience than Obama...that's why I keep "crying" about Obama.

Obama said he wants to increase activities in Afghanistan and Pakistan...I don't think he has enough experience to even suggest a WAR strategy.

Yes, I read your long post. And most if it seems more of your opinion which does not relfect any facts or references.

Yes, McCain flew in airplanes and was a POW. No, he has no experience *where it matters: leading troops and conducting a war.

You seem to have this false notion that because he has *some* military experience he's therefore better to lead the troops.

Ok, well if Obama said that go do a fact check. Do the commanding generals in Afghanistan want more troops there? If they do, he's right. If they dont, he's wrong.

In the meantime, could we stop speculating?

You have a tall task of explaining to me why flying an airplane and commanding a flight training facility has anything to do with what something like General petraeus does on a daily basis.

 

[WhoWee]

Why don't you make a valid point?

What do I care about his resume? McCain clearly has *no* resume that says he's a military strategist either.

One was in the military, the other was not. Neither had any experience as a commander (like petraeus for example).

You have no argument.


I would also take the time to learn the duties of the national guard. Historically, they have been called to duty to fight in wars overseas. It's a branch of the miltary. They don't just put sand bags out when a flood is coming.

They were called to duty because they were all out of enlisted troops.

Are you defending Bush's strategy to deploy National Guard units in Iraq?

It was INSANE to pull people away from their families and jobs and put them on the streets of Iraq. Enlisted troops expect to be deployed in unfriendly places.

National Guard troops sign up to help at home if necessary...and to get an education...Bush should know that better than ANYONE!

 

[WhoWee]

Yes, I read your long post. And most if it seems more of your opinion which does not relfect any facts or references.

Yes, McCain flew in airplanes and was a POW. No, he has no experience *where it matters: leading troops and conducting a war.

You seem to have this false notion that because he has *some* military experience he's therefore better to lead the troops.

Ok, well if Obama said that go do a fact check. Do the commanding generals in Afghanistan want more troops there? If they do, he's right. If they dont, he's wrong.

In the meantime, could we stop speculating?

You have a tall task of explaining to me why flying an airplane and commanding a flight training facility has anything to do with what something like General petraeus does on a daily basis.

When have I EVER compared McCain to General Petraeus? I said McCain was better suited than Obama...based on his knowledge and experience.

Read McCains profile

http://www.votesmart.org/bio.php?can_id=S0061103

now read Obama's

http://www.votesmart.org/bio.php?can_id=BS030017

I didn't make this up...McCain has more experience.

You're right, I can't prove that terrorist attempts would stop if we brought all of our people home...but it's very unlikely.

 

[Cyrus]

Are you defending Bush's strategy to deploy National Guard units in Iraq?

It was INSANE to pull people away from their families and jobs and put them on the streets of Iraq. Enlisted troops expect to be deployed in unfriendly places.

National Guard troops sign up to help at home if necessary...and to get an education...Bush should know that better than ANYONE!

Excuse me, please google "National Guard". They are a reserve branch of the military that fights when called up by the president. They knew this when the signed up. The FACT (which you don't seem to want to provide) is that all the enlisted troops are currently used up. So we had to get the National Guard over to help clean up the mess. And even with the National Guard, we don't have enough troops, and there's no one else left to get. So were stuck with how many we got at the moment.

Following World War II, National Guard aviation units, some of them dating back to World War I, became the Air National Guard, the nation's newest Reserve component. The Guard stood on the frontiers of freedom during the Cold War, sending soldiers and airmen to fight in Korea and to reinforce NATO during the Berlin crisis of 1961-1962. During the Vietnam war, almost 23,000 Army and Air Guardsmen were called up for a year of active duty; some 8,700 were deployed to Vietnam. Over 75,000 Army and Air Guardsmen were called upon to help bring a swift end to Desert Storm in 1991.

http://www.ngb.army.mil/About/default.aspx


I'm sorry. You have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[Cyrus]

When have I EVER compared McCain to General Petraeus? I said McCain was better suited than Obama...based on his knowledge and experience.

Read McCains profile

http://www.votesmart.org/bio.php?can_id=S0061103

now read Obama's

http://www.votesmart.org/bio.php?can_id=BS030017

I didn't make this up...McCain has more experience.

You're right, I can't prove that terrorist attempts would stop if we brought all of our people home...but it's very unlikely.

Ok, seriously. Enough is enough.

For the last time (and Please learn how to pay attention here), McCains experience plays no bearing on leardership roles in commanding a military force.

I never said *you* compared McCain to Petraeus. You don't pay attention. I said Petraeus has the experience that McCain would need *if* you want to make a statement that his military experience is of value as commander.

I also never said anything about terrorist attempts coming to a stop. What a pathetic argument.

Just get some facts and come back. Please. Right now this is silly and you're wasting everyones time.

 

[LowlyPion]

Biden, FDR and the Invention of Television

That whole line of reasoning is a trifle unfair. So Biden compressed time a bit and forgot his history. That pales in comparison to Palin's across the board ignorance. His sense of FDR was correct as FDR was a big one to communicate on the radio, which compared to the past of his time was a departure in taking advantage of the spread of radios. And the Depression itself, while generally thought to have started in October of 1929 was a succession of plunges and drifting into deeper difficulty that continued through the Hoover Years until Roosevelt was elected. It took Hoover some time to relinquish his "fundamentals are sound stance" as things just got worse.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_D._Roosevelt#First_term.2C_1933.E2.80.931937

The quote there from his inaugural address sounds strangely accurate in describing how things are now with respect to the greed of Wall Street.

Faced by failure of credit they have proposed only the lending of more money. Stripped of the lure of profit by which to induce our people to follow their false leadership, they have resorted to exhortations, pleading tearfully for restored confidence...The money changers have fled from their high seats in the temple of our civilization. We may now restore that temple to the ancient truths. The measure of the restoration lies in the extent to which we apply social values more noble than mere monetary profit.

 

[WhoWee]

I'm sorry too, but are you always this arrogant?

I guess I'll just have to defer to your superior intelligence and accept your assertion that Bush did the right thing when he deployed National Guard units to Iraq...because he didn't have enough enlisted men.

Maybe he should've counted them first?

Also, that (unlike Obama?) McCain doesn't know enough about the military or foreign affairs to qualify as President.

Last, I guess Obama will be justified to send National Guard units to Afghanistan where regular Russian forces struggled a while back.

 

[Cyrus]

I'm sorry too, but are you always this arrogant?

Look, in all honesty you *are* wasting everyone's time with your comments here because you have absolutely no facts, and you demonstrate no knowledge of what you're talking about.

I guess I'll just have to defer to your superior intelligence and accept your assertion that Bush did the right thing when he deployed National Guard units to Iraq...because he didn't have enough enlisted men.

No, you will defer to Tom Ricks and his careful review of thousands of documents from the Pentagon and on a troop assessment that the *Pentagon* did that found they needed exactly twice as many troops to conduct the war - which we don't have.

Also, that (unlike Obama?) McCain doesn't know enough about the military or foreign affairs to qualify as President.

Last, I guess Obama will be justified to send National Guard units to Afghanistan where regular Russian forces struggled a while back.

Again, a very poor understanding of the situation at the surface. We went into Afghanistan and were having success. Then we cut down and went to Iraq. The reason why the Russians had such a problem in Afghanistan is because we were training them and giving them state of the art stinger missiles to shoot down their helicopters. Your argument about the russians again is weak.

Urgh, you need to watch more news! Your argument lacks any sophistication...

 

[B. Elliott]

Even though Obamas website does state Afghanistan as being a key problem, it makes no mention of their plan to resolve.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/

It also says this which suprised me. I thought Obama was wanting to decrease the size of the military or at least keep it the same. The last I expected was further expansion.

Expand to Meet Military Needs on the Ground: Barack Obama and Joe Biden support plans to increase the size of the Army by 65,000 soldiers and the Marines by 27,000 troops. Increasing our end strength will help units retrain and re-equip properly between deployments and decrease the strain on military families.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/defense/#invest-century-military

 

[WarPhalange]

I'm sorry too, but are you always this arrogant?

I guess I'll just have to defer to your superior intelligence and accept your assertion that Bush did the right thing when he deployed National Guard units to Iraq...because he didn't have enough enlisted men.

Maybe he should've counted them first?

Also, that (unlike Obama?) McCain doesn't know enough about the military or foreign affairs to qualify as President.

Last, I guess Obama will be justified to send National Guard units to Afghanistan where regular Russian forces struggled a while back.

I have never seen so many spinning straw men in my life.

Bush was stupid in starting the war in Iraq, but the National Guard was legally deployed to Iraq. It was stupid, but it wasn't the first time it happened. Nobody forced them to enlist, after all. They need to have some sort of duty they are being paid for. Yes, he should have counted the number of troops first.

What does McCain know about foreign affairs? You haven't told me yet. The link you provided just said he was in the Navy. What does that have to do with foreign affairs? You can say he knows more about the military, but that doesn't mean he can lead the military. Obama and McCain are on equal footing regarding the issue.

Yes, if Obama decides to deploy National Guard (does he plan to?) to Afghanistan, he will be justified in doing so. I don't know why you can't seem to understand this.

 

[LowlyPion]

OK. Before things get too out of hand I hope that we can all agree that there's nothing personal going on here. Just a friendly exchange of fraternal ideas.

After all it's only politics.

 

[WhoWee]

I know it's legal to use the Guard...that doesn't make it a good decision...in Iraq or in the future.

Maybe we didn't have enough troops available because We The People spoke (through our voting for representatives) and demanded cuts in military spending and a balanced budget a while back (Clinton years)...or do I need to check my facts on that one too?

 

[Cyrus]

I know it's legal to use the Guard...that doesn't make it a good decision...in Iraq or in the future.

Maybe we didn't have enough troops available because We The People spoke (through our voting for representatives) and demanded cuts in military spending and a balanced budget a while back (Clinton years)...or do I need to check my facts on that one too?

You should also look into the rumsfeld ideaology of having a small, light, fast moving army. Which was great for toppling Sadam, but NOT designed for stabilizing a country.

It was fundamentally wrong. And he was eventually fired (hush hush, of course).

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

 

[WhoWee]

OK. Before things get too out of hand I hope that we can all agree that there's nothing personal going on here. Just a friendly exchange of fraternal ideas.

After all it's only politics.

LowlyPion...YOU ARE RIGHT!.

But this election needs to be debated by every American.

We all need to ask questions and challenge one another...let's all make sure we believe in our choices. Passion in the voice is good...as long as it's restrained.

This is strictly my opinion, but too many people sit on the sidelines every election year and defer to others to make a decision...because their vote won't matter (or whatever their excuse?)...them complain (to me quite often) about the outcome.

Our world has changed drastically since 911. I'm married with 4 kids, and very concerned about national security and financial independence. Nearly everyone I know has a lower standard of living this year than they had a few years ago.

My own home mortgage is held by a failed financial institution.

Again, I agree...and I'm sorry for my tone.

 

[WarPhalange]

I know it's legal to use the Guard...that doesn't make it a good decision...in Iraq or in the future.

I agree, but when you got to do it, you got to do it. The National Guard is there mainly to guard the nation (What a concept!), but they can still be moved if they have to. If you NEED more troops somewhere and you have troops here that are doing absolutely nothing, then well, maybe you should move them?

Maybe we didn't have enough troops available because We The People spoke (through our voting for representatives) and demanded cuts in military spending and a balanced budget a while back (Clinton years)...or do I need to check my facts on that one too?

You only need a big military if you plan on going to war and occupying nations. We the People didn't want that, and neither did Clinton. It's not like we are ever going to be invaded again, so why bother?

 

[NeoDevin]

It's not like we are ever going to be invaded again, so why bother?

Me and four of the guys at the pub here in Canada are planning an invasion of the states next week, we've only got one concern: What will we do with all the prisoners?

 

[WarPhalange]

Make shock documentaries?

 

[WhoWee]

Me and four of the guys at the pub here in Canada are planning an invasion of the states next week, we've only got one concern: What will we do with all the prisoners?

Pay off their mortgages and credit cards, buy them gas and feed them a nice dinner...then take them back and get them jobs.

 

[NeoDevin]

I think we've now lightened the tone of this thread enough to continue with civilized discussion

 

[phoenixy]

Biden also definitely has his moments exactly like Palin...

Funny how the media is quick to point out Palins mistakes, yet you rarely every hear of 'screwups' such as this.

Oh everyone heard it, one way or the other. What you really want to say is that no one think much of it. Daily Show made fun of it. To that end, Biden is completely different from Palin. Biden make mistakes because he talks like a machine-gun and it just so happen that he jams from time to time. Given his record and image, a few momentary memory relapse won't distract anyone from the fact that he knows his material.

On other hand, everytime Palin does a Couric, she reminds everyone how little she knows about anything. She's going to to get more attention from the media until she can establish a strong record.

It's all about having a good signal to noise ratio for your message.

 

[LowlyPion]

On a lighter note, here is the Real John McCain:

Between 1982 and 1987, McCain had received $112,000 in lawful political contributions from Charles Keating Jr. and his associates at Lincoln Savings and Loan Association, along with trips on Keating's jets that McCain belatedly repaid two years later. In 1987, McCain was one of the five senators from whom Keating contacted in order to prevent the government's seizure of Lincoln, and McCain met twice with federal regulators to discuss the government's investigation of Lincoln.

Just a friendly guy helping his friends?

 

[Cyrus]

I'm sitting here scratching my head as to why you people think personal attacks are being thrown around.

I clearly said make factual arguments.

If you are not going to present relevant fact's in your argument; people will hold you to what you said. If you put words in others mouth when challenged to present your facts, I'm going to hold you to what you said.

If you don't like this, don't post here.

I have nothing against you. I have a lot against the way you present your case. Please understand this difference, because you really do waste our time when you make a case with nothing to support it.

 

[mheslep]

I'm sorry. McCain was a naval aviator. That has *nothing* to do with the knowledge of a general in how to lead a war. Your agument is disparate at best, and ignorant at worst.

After the war Sen. McCain commanded a large squadron in Florida and reached the rank of Captain (O-6) in the Navy.
http://www.history.navy.mil/download/va154174.pdf
or
http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/mccain/articles/2007/03/01/20070301mccainbio-chapter4.html

 

[Cyrus]

After the war Sen. McCain commanded a large squadron in Florida and reached the rank of Captain (O-6) in the Navy.
http://www.history.navy.mil/download/va154174.pdf
or
http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/mccain/articles/2007/03/01/20070301mccainbio-chapter4.html

McCain started in the office's No. 2 spot, but it wasn't long before he was promoted to captain and took charge of the operation, which was based in the Russell Senate Office Building.

The job entailed lobbying and acting as a communication conduit between the Navy and the Senate.

You were saying?...

He ran a flight school. Gimme a break...

First of all, he was in the Navy. The people who fight terrorists are mainly on the ground. If you want to talk about fighting terrorists, you want a qualified General from the army/marines that has lead large groups of troops on the ground and has relevant experience.

If he was a battlefield commander in Vietnam, that's more relevant.

 

[WhoWee]

You were saying?...

He ran a flight school. Gimme a break...

First of all, he was in the Navy. The people who fight terrorists are mainly on the ground. If you want to talk about fighting terrorists, you want a qualified General from the army/marines that has lead large groups of troops on the ground and has relevant experience.

If he was a battlefield commander in Vietnam, that's more relevant.

More relevant to what?This is not personal...but your assessment is incorrect.

On 911, most of the people who died from terrorist attacks were attacked from the air...by airplanes. Knowledge of air operations is very relevant. In 2000 a US Navy ship, the USS Cole was attacked by Al Quaida...very relevant. I also seem to remember that Naval and air support almost always precede ground combat...to "soften" things up for the ground troops. I also think the Navy SEAL teams might take serious issue with your assertion that Navy personnel somehow lack the skills to combat terrorists...(they spend a lot of time in the water...and the planet is covered 2/3 by water). The bottom line is you can't dismiss the importance of Naval experience as irrelevant. McCain, did attend the War College and the Naval Academy...class rank however is irrelevant...he attended...Obama didn't. That is VERY relevant.

At this point in the WAR, nothing may be MORE RELEVANT than experience in coordinating communication between (the President) Congress and the Pentagon...as you pointed out...McCain has THAT experience...Obama on the other hand, doesn't...very relevant to the election.

As for ground troops (Army and Marines)...they mostly fight other ground troops...except for the Army Rangers who specialize in deployment from aircraft. Plus, let's not forget those lethal Army attack helicopters...that fly in the air and coordinate with Naval air support and surveillance. The Marines are an amphibious fighting force who often deploy from Navy ships and sometimes from the air. Marine helicopters and fighters coordinate air operations with Naval systems. Terrorists use car bombs or take shots from safe cover and run...you need a comprehensive military strategy often involving a mix of special forces (often deployed from the air...and/or sea) and surveillance...again from the air. I personally know several former Navy men who are in Afghanistan (on the ground) RIGHT NOW working with the surveillance drones...trying to save the lives of our ground troops. That is relevant also.

 

[LowlyPion]

More relevant to what?
...
On 911, most of the people who died from terrorist attacks were attacked from the air...by airplanes. Knowledge of air operations is very relevant.

Oh come on. That's hardly relevant to anything. The real causes of terrorism are political and economic and at this McCain has demonstrated himself particularly ill suited for command and decision.

If he was running for head of Top Gun Flight Training School maybe he would be more qualified than Obama, but given his erratic and frantic performance the past weeks in Washington, Obama looks to have a surer hand on the political pulse of the situation than the rudderless McCain, and has demonstrated himself not to be drawn back by the ideologies of the Far Right.

 

[WarPhalange]

On 911, most of the people who died from terrorist attacks were attacked from the air...by airplanes. Knowledge of air operations is very relevant.

Hahahah! Thanks, I needed a good laugh to wake me up.


So what about dirty bombs? What about trains? Do we elect a bomb expert who knows how to operate trains to the White House?

What knowledge of air operations would McCain have that are relevant? He can scramble fighter jets, not jumbo jets. The hijackers were not very experienced pilots and didn't do any complex maneuvering. Moreover, it was the actual fighter jet pilots who controlled the planes, and their commanding officers. The President just gave either a "Yeah, shoot them down." or "No, don't shoot them down."

How does having knowledge of air operations have any bearing on that? Nobody would have been able to predict at that moment in time (assuming no prior knowledge of Bin Laden plan... *cough*memo*cough*) that the planes would have collided with buildings, since that's now how terrorists operated in the past. It was hijack->demand ransom-> land, etc.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

At this point in the WAR, nothing may be MORE RELEVANT than experience in coordinating communication between (the President) Congress and the Pentagon...as you pointed out...McCain has THAT experience...Obama on the other hand, doesn't...very relevant to the election.

So then your position is that Kerry should have been elected instead of Bush?

 

[asdfggfdsa]

Cyrus,

Did you even read my post...the long one you quoted?

My point was that McCain has more military experience than Obama...that's why I keep "crying" about Obama.

Obama said he wants to increase activities in Afghanistan and Pakistan...I don't think he has enough experience to even suggest a WAR strategy.

his job is to come up with a national security strategy (with the help of foreign policy advisors), not come up with a war strategy. Ie, do you ally nation X or nation Y? Invade a country or not? Sign this treaty or not? Each of which are (hopefully) decided in accordance with the president's guiding philosophy concerning international relations (realism or idealism, and if idealism, then either neoconservatism or wilsoniamism).

War strategies are what generals (joint chiefs, etc.) are employed for.

(i'm all ism'ed out for the day)

 

[Astronuc]

General comments to all P&WA participants:

Please do not engage in personal attacks or insults of other members.

Statements of disagreement with a position or statement are OK.

All positions, pro or con, should be supported with evidence.

 

[Amp1]

A lot of argument here.

Suffice to say, IMO, McCain has bankrupted his integrity - (commom knowledge in the public arena). 1) His selection of Palin. 2) Grandstanding in the face of a national economic crisis, and that's just two recent events.

It was fairly well known that Rumsfeld shrunk our military and along with BUSH/CHENEY and WOLFIWITZ stretched very thin our military. There are thousands of troops, airmen, marines, and sailors stationed around the globe on various missions, ie, peace keeping, the DMK, Gitmo base, and others around the world. Most can't be redeployed without seriously compromising their support missions or giving an opening for rouge regimes to consider overrunning their less advantaged neighbors. JMO. Mind you!

 

[mheslep]

A lot of argument here.

Where?

It was fairly well known that Rumsfeld shrunk our military

Then it should be easy to cite a source for that statement.

 

[Amp1]

Argue-who's arguing, I meant rant.../ er.. uhm debating

My bad mheslep, I should have said--IMO, Rumsfeld wanted to make the military smaller and more mobile. anyway here:

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/11/20/061120fa_fact

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0517/p01s01-usmi.html

http://www.slate.com/id/2084212/

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=14524

Since you take issue with my statement, I hope you agree those links are credible.

 

[WhoWee]

So then your position is that Kerry should have been elected instead of Bush?

Always was...I voted for Kerry.

 

[mheslep]

Argue-who's arguing, I meant rant.../ er.. uhm debating

My bad mheslep, I should have said--IMO, Rumsfeld wanted to make the military smaller and more mobile. anyway here:

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/11/20/061120fa_fact

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0517/p01s01-usmi.html

http://www.slate.com/id/2084212/

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=14524

Since you take issue with my statement, I hope you agree those links are credible.

Yes I agree. Rumsfeld's main theme was to make the force more nimble - my take on those links. That is, pick up and deploy significant force some place in a few days/weeks instead of 6 months.

 

[Cyrus]

More relevant to what?

Do you really need me to explain this to you? It's more relevant to *your* claim that his military experience makes him better suited as president to deal with terrorism.

This is not personal...but your assessment is incorrect.

No, it's not.

On 911, most of the people who died from terrorist attacks were attacked from the air...by airplanes. Knowledge of air operations is very relevant.

................. (that's the response I'm going to give to stuff that's just utter and complete nonsense. It's not even worth a reply).

In 2000 a US Navy ship, the USS Cole was attacked by Al Quaida...very relevant.

.....................

I also seem to remember that Naval and air support almost always precede ground combat...to "soften" things up for the ground troops.

.........zzzZzzzz............

I also think the Navy SEAL teams might take serious issue with your assertion that Navy personnel somehow lack the skills to combat terrorists...(they spend a lot of time in the water...and the planet is covered 2/3 by water).

................

The bottom line is you can't dismiss the importance of Naval experience as irrelevant. McCain, did attend the War College and the Naval Academy...class rank however is irrelevant...he attended...Obama didn't. That is VERY relevant.

Clearly, I just did. And I explained *exactly* why it was. So, he attended the war college for exactly one year 35 years ago and he implemented this knowledge and has a real world working experience of it how?

At this point in the WAR, nothing may be MORE RELEVANT than experience in coordinating communication between (the President) Congress and the Pentagon...as you pointed out...McCain has THAT experience...Obama on the other hand, doesn't...very relevant to the election.

You're grasping real hard for things that are not there.

As for ground troops (Army and Marines)...they mostly fight other ground troops...except for the Army Rangers who specialize in deployment from aircraft.

Uh...who do you think they fight when they jump out of those aircraft and land on the ground? Other ground troops, maybe?

Plus, let's not forget those lethal Army attack helicopters...that fly in the air and coordinate with Naval air support and surveillance.

Man, get to a point already. All this wrambling really goes nowhere fast. Ok, and the tanks go vroommmmmmm, and the guns go popopopopo, and the helicopters fly around. What's the point of all this.

The Marines are an amphibious fighting force who often deploy from Navy ships and sometimes from the air.

Yeah, uhuh......

Marine helicopters and fighters coordinate air operations with Naval systems. Terrorists use car bombs or take shots from safe cover and run...you need a comprehensive military strategy often involving a mix of special forces (often deployed from the air...and/or sea) and surveillance...again from the air. I personally know several former Navy men who are in Afghanistan (on the ground) RIGHT NOW working with the surveillance drones...trying to save the lives of our ground troops. That is relevant also.

Jeezus. What a long post about nothing.

I applaud your long post on explaining how the joint services work together. I fail to see how any of your post deals with steming the problem of terroism.

Since you did not get the point, I'll just make it explicitly clear for you. A battle field commander in Iraq commands men on the ground. He or she is responsible for making sure that his/her troops are aware that they should treat the locals with respect, and when they don't the turn the locals against them and are aiding the terrorists. They also know who the terrorists are in the various communities, who are the local religious/political leaders that are for/against the efforts of the americans and iraqi government. All these are the *relevant things you can only learn while being on the ground and talking to the people there.

Please stop with all these false premises about how airplanes were used in 9-11, and so airplanes are an important part of the strategy. Reading such replies is a continued waste of my time. You have presented me with zero, none, zip, zlich, nada, 0, facts so far about anything. Please post once you have some, and try to be more concise and to the point.

 

[Cyrus]

Here is a perfect example:

Col. H.R. McMaster

http://www.charlierose.com/shows/2008/05/30/1/a-conversation-with-col-h-r-mcmaster

If McCain had *relevant miliary experience like McMaster, then your argument would be right.

If he was the head of the CIA like G. Bush Sr, I would agree. Or DHS like Tom Ridge.

But to say 'oh he flew airplanes, and the terrorists used airplanes' is not an argument.

 

[phoenixy]

But to say 'oh he flew airplanes, and the terrorists used airplanes' is not an argument.

Heh, ever since "My state is right next to Russia, therefore I have foreign experience", these sorts of claims don't even faze me anymore.

War on logic is well underway.