Education

Battleborne said:
Suppose intelligence showed Iran was preparing to launch a Nuke missle at Israel...should we not preemtive strike the launch pad?... or just wait until Israel has been hit...then it would pass muster and be justified?:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Hmmm... Perhaps I should be more clear. Bombing a nuke isn't invasion. Preemptive war is bad policy.
 
RStringfield said:
You stated I cherry picked. I did nothing of the kind. I provided the full quote on the matter from the source. You did nothing but bold (cherry pick) what you thought was relevant but it does not change what he said, and that was that there was no need to consult congress much less ask for a declaration of war, but he would if he had time.
Click to expand...



Like I said ...it was sarcasm as I had already read this information from the site...it was not a complete quote....thus I said 'Cherry Picked'...take the blame if it makes you feel better!
:rolleyes:
 
Yes you should..........

Damocles said:
Hmmm... Perhaps I should be more clear. Bombing a nuke isn't invasion. Preemptive war is bad policy.
Click to expand...


preemtive strikes come in many colors and variations...;) I do believe you have forgotten the catch 22...a preemtive strike to most on the receiving end is considered a act of WAR!
 
Last edited:
Battleborne said:
Like I said ...it was sarcasm as I had already read this information from the site...it was not a complete quote....thus I said 'Cherry Picked'...take the blame if it makes you feel better!
:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

It was a complete quote. The rest of his response was COMPLETELY irrelevant to the question and not you, nor anyone else, has or can provide any missing portions of the quote. Here is the FULL answer.

MCCAIN: Because I don’t think that’s the time to call in the lawyers, when we’re in a national security crisis. Those are the last people I’d call in.

The people I’d call in, I’d call in my wisdom, my knowledge, my background, my experience, and my ability to lead this nation.

Governor Romney, you’ve been spending the last year trying to fool people about your record. You can’t – I don’t want you to start fooling them about mine. I stand on my record. I stand on my record of a conservative – of a conservative, and I don’t think you can fool the American people. I think the first thing you need is their respect, and I intend to earn their respect because they may not agree with me on a couple of issues, but they’ll know I’m telling the truth, and what I believe and my steadfast positions on these issues for more than 20 years, and I know that the transcendent challenge I have the qualifications to lead, to grapple with and to emerge victorious.

I have those qualifications and I'm proud of them.

(APPLAUSE)


http://www.cfr.org/publication/14580/

The last two paragraphs have nothing at all to do with the issue. Now shut the fuck up.
 
RStringfield said:
It was a complete quote. The rest of his response was COMPLETELY irrelevant to the question and not you, nor anyone else, has or can provide any missing portions of the quote. Here is the FULL answer.

MCCAIN: Because I don’t think that’s the time to call in the lawyers, when we’re in a national security crisis. Those are the last people I’d call in.

The people I’d call in, I’d call in my wisdom, my knowledge, my background, my experience, and my ability to lead this nation.

Governor Romney, you’ve been spending the last year trying to fool people about your record. You can’t – I don’t want you to start fooling them about mine. I stand on my record. I stand on my record of a conservative – of a conservative, and I don’t think you can fool the American people. I think the first thing you need is their respect, and I intend to earn their respect because they may not agree with me on a couple of issues, but they’ll know I’m telling the truth, and what I believe and my steadfast positions on these issues for more than 20 years, and I know that the transcendent challenge I have the qualifications to lead, to grapple with and to emerge victorious.

I have those qualifications and I'm proud of them.

(APPLAUSE)


http://www.cfr.org/publication/14580/

The last two paragraphs have nothing at all to do with the issue. Now shut the fuck up.
Click to expand...


Taking lessons from darla I see...when called out ya just go on and on then bring out the big gun the dreaded 'F' word... What you posted above was not your original post...backpeddleing is so juvenile...now I will shut up...ya are not worth the effort!
 
Battleborne said:
preemtive strikes come in many colors and variations...;) I do believe you have forgotten the catch 22...a preemtive strike to most on the receiving end is considered a act of WAR!
Click to expand...
Whether it is considered an act of war, it is far different than invading them and occupying them preemptively.
 
Battleborne said:
Taking lessons from darla I see...when called out ya just go on and on then bring out the big gun the dreaded 'F' word... What you posted above was not your original post...backpeddleing is so juvenile...now I will shut up...ya are not worth the effort!
Click to expand...

I don't take accusations against my honesty lightly. If I had unintentionally "cherry picked" and you showed that I had I would say my mea culpas and leave it at that. But that's not the case.

When you say someone "cherry picked" something that typically means they pulled something out of context. I included the entire quote from the original source I had and your dumbass bolded part of it to imply that there was something shady about the presentation that hid the meaning. Apparently, I cherry picked because I included more than you though was pertinent. That is, you cherry picked in what you bolded instead of doing anything to show what I supposedly left out.

Not being lazy like you, I went and found the entire transcript to see if my first source had left anything important out. They had not. The last 2 paragraphs offer no context whatsoever to the point. They are nothing but a common political tactic where the candidate uses the opening to make unrelated points, throw out some soundbites and fire salvos at other candidates.

Further, I can find nothing where he said anything close to the notion that he would "absolutely consult congress." It's not in the Orlando or Dearborn debates. That appears to be Paul. McCain said he would consult congress so long as there is plenty of time. As if the Jack Bauer scenarios are anything but war propaganda as Paul pointed out.

I am not backpedaling one bit. No need to when you have done nothing to bolster your assertion.
 
I used the quote from Cypress' article where he said he would consult congress before going into Iran. It was during an interview. Even you spoke of the fact that he has said that he would, respecting time limitations.

If you were President and had real evidence of an attack on let's say Germany from Iran with a nuke and you had minutes to act to stop it would you call a special session of Congress or would you use the authority given you by the constitution to do something?
 
Damocles said:
I don't think you left anything out that the site gave you, however that site left out some of the answer he gave. Just as Cypress' link left out that beginning portion in his story on that other thread. I believe I remember that interview now.

So far the best evidence I have of McCain being a war monger is his support of Preemptive strikes, from your link. I don't like preemptive strikes. I don't support that policy and will gladly give a piece of my "security" to ensure that America continues to not strike first.
Click to expand...

I don't think supporting pre-emptive strikes makes him a warmonger. It means if he sees a clear and present danger, he will act and not necessarily wait until we are hit first. I suppose it comes down to whether or not you think he will use the War Powers Act in the manner that Bush did or will he only use it when there really is an immenant threat.

That site provided a bit of insight into that. To me it comes down to his character. I think he is one of the best we have seen in a long time when it comes to character. I think Obama is another (even though I do not agree with many of his policies).

"Military’s political leaders need military backgrounds
I think the state of our military is still important. I think the fact that we have a president of the United States, National Security Adviser, a Secretary of State and a Secretary of Defense, none of whom have ever spent one minute wearing the uniform of the United States of America’s military is a disgrace, and we’re going to change that. "

"“Rogue state rollback” avoids use of US troops
Q: You’ve talked about something that you have called “rogue state rollback,” which means, as I understand it, arming and paying for rebel armies in countries like Iraq to overthrow governments that we don’t like. Will we have a moral obligation under your policy to send American armed forces to help those folks out? A: No, that’s a very narrow interpretation of “rogue state rollback.” That means that you do whatever you can, whether it be the use of propaganda, whether it be used to organize groups outside the country, whether it be arming and training and equipping, depending on what the possibilities are. No, this is an attempt to avoid US military involvement. We do what we can to overthrow these countries which pose a clear and present danger to the security of the US. So you really kind of have two choices: you react militarily, risking American lives, or you try to overthrow that government. "

"Use force, with US control, only for vital interests
Force has a role in but is not a substitute for diplomacy. All means short of force should be employed first. [We should not risk] American lives in quarrels that are entirely someone else’s affair, where no faction is committed to our values, and no vital interest is at stake. When force must be used, have clear rules of engagement, define an achievable mission, and bring [US troops] home as soon as possible. And never accept foreign or “dual key” authority for the command of US military operations. "
 
Superfreak said:
I don't think supporting pre-emptive strikes makes him a warmonger. It means if he sees a clear and present danger, he will act and not necessarily wait until we are hit first. I suppose it comes down to whether or not you think he will use the War Powers Act in the manner that Bush did or will he only use it when there really is an immenant threat.

That site provided a bit of insight into that. To me it comes down to his character. I think he is one of the best we have seen in a long time when it comes to character. I think Obama is another (even though I do not agree with many of his policies).

"Military’s political leaders need military backgrounds
I think the state of our military is still important. I think the fact that we have a president of the United States, National Security Adviser, a Secretary of State and a Secretary of Defense, none of whom have ever spent one minute wearing the uniform of the United States of America’s military is a disgrace, and we’re going to change that. "

"“Rogue state rollback” avoids use of US troops
Q: You’ve talked about something that you have called “rogue state rollback,” which means, as I understand it, arming and paying for rebel armies in countries like Iraq to overthrow governments that we don’t like. Will we have a moral obligation under your policy to send American armed forces to help those folks out? A: No, that’s a very narrow interpretation of “rogue state rollback.” That means that you do whatever you can, whether it be the use of propaganda, whether it be used to organize groups outside the country, whether it be arming and training and equipping, depending on what the possibilities are. No, this is an attempt to avoid US military involvement. We do what we can to overthrow these countries which pose a clear and present danger to the security of the US. So you really kind of have two choices: you react militarily, risking American lives, or you try to overthrow that government. "

"Use force, with US control, only for vital interests
Force has a role in but is not a substitute for diplomacy. All means short of force should be employed first. [We should not risk] American lives in quarrels that are entirely someone else’s affair, where no faction is committed to our values, and no vital interest is at stake. When force must be used, have clear rules of engagement, define an achievable mission, and bring [US troops] home as soon as possible. And never accept foreign or “dual key” authority for the command of US military operations. "
Click to expand...
Pre-emptive strikes are different than what happened in Iraq. That was a Pre-emptive War, and that is the policy he is supporting when he supports Bush's Pre-Emptive Policy.

I clarified later after BB asked a question.
 
Damocles said:
Pre-emptive strikes are different than what happened in Iraq. That was a Pre-emptive War, and that is the policy he is supporting when he supports Bush's Pre-Emptive Policy.

I clarified later after BB asked a question.
Click to expand...

Sorry, poor choice of words on my part. I still think his answers to the questions that I quoted provide some insight into what it would take for him to enter into a pre-emptive war.

It is my take from his answers that it would be an absolute last resort... especially in the use of our troops.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top