John McCain first, Country second... American Presidency a journey of personal discovery ( Archived) (172)

I think you'd better read up on the Pahlavi Dynasty again!

I think that you got this one wrong, Jim. Follow me some here.

How many of the REP canidates that were in the primaries....that were more to the right, more Christian conservative, more big business than McCain?

Huckabee, Romney, Thompson all fit the bill there. Yet the REP primary voters selected a mid road reformer. The REP voters were already moving to where McCain was....mid road and reform.

Leadership......is a mystical quality at times. We put a generals uniform on a man or woman....we say you are a leader. Then you get the leadership of the Major General at the Abu Grail prison. Or you get the
leadership of General Peatris. Some have it, some don't.

You are right DEM and REP think and look at things differently. But
that does not mean on certian issues....that there cannot be alot of agreement. It is those issues of division that keeps much from happening for the country....here there are the battles that neither like to compomise on.

I don't see McCain being a Abraham Lincoln figure. Nor do I see Obama as one either. To me, Lincoln is the model for Presidential Leadership. They both have a different skill set than Lincoln had.
A different leadership style if you will. Which one is better for the next four years is a good question to ask.

I see us in some real foreign affairs issues. That involve military, commerce, human rights, and with Russia, Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan. To me, McCain's blunt leadership sytle works better here than the flowery style of Obama. I want a President for the next 4 years....that can make a decision and stick with it.....explain it bluntly and honestly....not play word games with Iran and Russia. I think that
is the countries safest course.

Nastarovia Indyfella!

From all people I "know", one thing is certain......you will Never Ever Change !

Also......Barak fully knows who and what Sadam Hussien was then.
When OReilly interviewed him.....Barak said......'Sadam was this very very bad man'....how in the world, does Barak think that this very very bad man was going to be removed from power? He does not say.
/quote]

We as a country was much better off with Saddam in power. The war is a major factor in the fall of our economy. You can look through history and see how war brings on inflation. We get some government numbers that the war has cost X amount of money, but history has shown that its always a greater amount than the government lets on.

Our government loves to play both sides of the war. We give Israel money and weapons to bomb Lebanon and then we give Lebanon American taxpayer money to rebuild the homes and roads that we paid to bomb. What happens in nature when you take away a animals only predator? That animal will multiply and become a problem. Iraq was Irans natural predator, both sides drained money to protect themselves from each other. Now that Iraq is gone Iran can flourish. If you lo

Bin Laden's AlQeada is a composite organization of Sunni, Shia, Chechyan, Arab, and many other tribes and sects. OK? El Zharki the first leader of AlQeada in Iraq...got medical treatment for Afghan war wound in Iraq. Bin Laden eldest son, Saad got safe haven in Iran after
Afghanistan fell.

The point I am making is that with that composition element, bin Laden after 9/11 was going to be able to get some support from Sadam for terrorism against the US or from Iran or Lybia or most any other Moslem country. His 70,000 trainees went to 40 different countries. Let us face that fact both had a common enemy in the US at that time. Given time and opportunity they would link up.

So I don't accept the with 'Sadam in power we were better off'.

Boy you go back a ways in history on the Iran issue. But OK. Iran and Iraq are natural enemies, agreed. Their war shows that. But look at the causes of the war carefully. The majority of that war was in the Basra border area where both have oil fields. The war was fought over the possession of those oil fields.

Whether Iran was a democracy, Shan run country or a Islamic revolutionary gov't that war was going to happen over those oil fields. Point being......these two got greedy in the world oil market....if one could bump the other out its oil fields.....it was wealth to the country. America did not start the war. We supported Sadam because we already knew that a Revolutionary Islamic Iran was bad news for us.

The last 25 years...since the embassy take over...I would say that Russia is a much bigger reason for what Iran is, than the US. Those 32 nuclear facilities inside Iran are not American designed and built, but Russian. There are only a few American companies that continue to do business inside Iran. Been that way since the UN security council sanctions (3 now) began. Russian trade with Iran is substantial.

Both side of a war.......well call us warriors and humaniarians at the sametime, I guess is another way of saying that. The old destroy em for the rebuild ems. Have we had mixed foreign policies in the past? Yes. But again, I think that is why you need McCain in the Presidency.

President Obama's flowery speech is going to be analysis in these foreign capitols. It leads to many definitions and intrepretations. E.G. mixed signals and mixed foreign policies. McCain's straight shooting starts to end that, in my mind. Foreign gov't are going to know where the line is.....and what happens if they cross it.