John McCain: The Real Story | YouTube Video

  • News
  • Thread starter LightbulbSun
  • Start date
In summary: I would expect from a president...would be more substance.In summary, Obama has not changed his position on drilling for oil. He still opposes the practice. However, he has shifted his stance to accept it if it is a necessary part of a compromise. He also said that Hollywood and the mainstream media are to blame for some of the negative perceptions of him.
  • #71
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
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #72
WhoWee said:
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.
 
  • #73
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.
 
  • #74
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?
 
  • #75
WhoWee said:
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
 
  • #76
LowlyPion said:
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.
 
  • #77
WhoWee said:
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?
 
  • #78
WarPhalange said:
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?
 
  • #79
Make shock documentaries? :confused:
 
  • #80
NeoDevin said:
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.
 
  • #81
I think we've now lightened the tone of this thread enough to continue with civilized discussion :approve:
 
  • #82
B. Elliott said:
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.
 
  • #83
On a lighter note, here is the Real John McCain:
Wikipedia said:
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?
 
  • #84
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.
 
  • #85
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #86
mheslep said:
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #87
Cyrus said:
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #88
WhoWee said:
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.
 
  • #89
WhoWee said:
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #90
WhoWee said:
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?
 
  • #91
WhoWee said:
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)
 
  • #92
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #93
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!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #94
Amp1 said:
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.
 
  • #95
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #96
Ivan Seeking said:
So then your position is that Kerry should have been elected instead of Bush?

Always was...I voted for Kerry.
 
  • #97
Amp1 said:
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #98
WhoWee said:
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......:uhh:

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.
 
Last edited:
  • #99
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #100
Cyrus said:
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.
 
  • #101
phoenixy said:
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.

Don't forget `My state has oil, so I'm the nation's leading energy expert!'
 
  • #102
NeoDevin said:
Don't forget `My state has oil, so I'm the nation's leading energy expert!'

Texas is an oil state too.

Look at the tar pit the last Governor from there that became President led the country into.
 
  • #103
Salon said:
Oct. 7, 2008 | "I've had my fill of partisan excesses, and I don't intend to disgrace myself by indulging in them." -- "Worth the Fighting For," by John McCain with Mark Salter (2002)

The driving narrative of John McCain's political career is not enduring five and a half years in a POW camp, but suffering through four years in the cross hairs of a late 1980s congressional scandal known as the Keating Five. As McCain tells it (and he has discussed it in almost every medium aside from Japanese manga comics), this was a classic tale of sin and salvation as an erring senator makes a grievous mistake in judgment, is hauled before the Senate Ethics Committee and, as a result, is forever changed by the public humiliation.

"I would very much like to think that I have never been a man whose favor could be bought. From my earliest youth, I would have considered such a reputation to be the most shameful ignominy imaginable," McCain writes in his 2002 memoir. "Yet that is exactly how millions of Americans viewed me for a time, a time that I will forever consider one of the worst experiences of my life." (For those who lack an encyclopedic memory of 1988 news headlines, McCain, along with four other Democratic senators, improperly intervened with federal regulators in an effort to save the crumbling savings-and-loan empire of Charles Keating, an Arizona friend and campaign contributor of McCain's.)
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/10/07/low_road/
 
  • #104
anyone has read the RollingStone yet?
Wow.. this guy really one dumb brat..
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/coverstory/make_believe_maverick_the_real_john_mccain

Sorry if someone has posted it already..
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #105
karenlau said:
anyone has read the RollingStone yet?
Wow.. this guy really one dumb brat..
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/coverstory/make_believe_maverick_the_real_john_mccain

Sorry if someone has posted it already..
Thanks for the link.
Rollingstone said:
It is the story of a man who has consistently put his own advancement above all else, a man willing to say and do anything to achieve his ultimate ambition: to become commander in chief, ascending to the one position that would finally enable him to outrank his four-star father and grandfather.

That pretty much summarizes the affinity that McCain has with Palin too I suppose. Looks like they just might be kindred spirits.

Ambition wolves in maverick's clothing.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

David Kaplan lecture on Particles and the Nature of Nothing
    • General Discussion
Replies
1
Views
1K
Mentalist: How did Red John know the Jane's list?
    • General Discussion
Replies
5
Views
1K
I Feedback for my YouTube Videos on Real Analysis
    • Topology and Analysis
Replies
4
Views
973
I Gravitation (MTW) Misner Thorne Wheeler - 50 years (RIP) C.W.Misner
    • Special and General Relativity
Replies
6
Views
603
I Entropy Real? End of Time? - Veritasium Video
    • Other Physics Topics
Replies
14
Views
3K
3D Origami Paper Swan (HD) Tell me what you think
    • General Discussion
Replies
1
Views
1K
I New Video Course on General Topology on YouTube
    • Topology and Analysis
Replies
2
Views
369
I Full Course in Group Theory (and More) on YouTube
    • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
7
Views
1K
What is the current status of the Chernobyl recovery efforts?
    • General Discussion
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Sticky
Getting Started With Computers and Programming
    • Programming and Computer Science
Replies
13
Views
4K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top