I believe that this election is one of the most important in my life time. Whether we want to admit or accept it, the Democratic party has been traditionally viewed as weaker on National Security issues than their counterpart Republicans.
Whether or not the stereotype is true or even fair is another issue of debate. The fact remains. I personally don’t think it is. I think Democrats like Hillary Clinton and Joe Lieberman would bomb the shit out of anyone that attacked us. I also think that Lieberman would make a decent Commander and Chief.
Again, this stereotype exists and it is partly do the actions, or rather inactions of previous (D) presidents. If you look back to the each party’s track record, going to back to Carter, you’ll see where this stereotype comes from.
Jimmy Carter (D) - after Iran took Americans hostage Carter made two weak attempts at getting them back. Two separate missions one of which never got off the ground. Our people were kept for years while Carter tried unsuccessfully to negotiate their release. MINUTES after Ronald Reagan was sworn in our people were released. Why? Because the no nonsense Reagan would have bombed them back to the stone ages, and Iran knew it. Carter’s refusal to employ the force necessary to bring our people home played right into Khomeini’s hands.
Ronald Reagan (R) – After Libyan terrorists bombed a disco in West Berlin (killing hundreds of people including Americans); Reagan bombed several sites in Libya, including Qaddafi’s palace.
George Bush Sr. (R) – Used military force to free Kuwait.
Bill Clinton (D) – After the World Trade Centers were bombed in 1993, Clinton’s response was to lob a couple of missiles into Afghanistan. Hitting nothing but an aspirin factory (I think). Not long after the USS Cole is attacked and 17 US sailors were killed – attacking a US warship in itself IS an act of war. But what did Clinton do? Nothing. Not only that but at one point in time bin Laden was in the cross hairs of a US missile and no order was given to take him out.
George Bush Jr. (R) – After 9/11 he sends the US military to Afghanistan to hunt down and kill those responsible. He also seriously screwed up by invading a country that had NOTHING to do with the attacks. Had he just stuck to Afghanistan I believe things would be much different.
Diplomacy with these people [terrorists] does not work, guys. You can talk until you’re blue in the face and all you’ll get in return in more suicide bombings and hijacked planes.
Personally, I don’t think it’s fair to label all Democrats as weak on national security – especially with the likes of Hillary and Lieberman in their ranks. I firmly believe there ARE some good Democrats that will do whatever is necessary to protect this country. However, in my opinion, Barack Obama is not one of them. You should note that I also believe there are some Republicans who I feel would choose inaction over force when legitimate threats rise against our nation.
So why then am I so adamantly against Obama serving as our Commander and Chief? Despite the fact the man has zero experience in foreign policy, despite the fact he has zero experience in or with the military… I’ll let you listen to his own words on why I think the way I do.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dl32Y7wDVDsNow, some of the things he said I DO agree with. Why are we wasting money on unproven missile systems? I also agree with him that cutting wasteful spending is highly important. He’s got my support there – but where he takes a turn for the worst is: “I will not weaponize space?” Is he serious? Using space based missile systems is the BEST measure we have of shooting down incoming nuclear warheads. Lest we forget… Russia STILL has a rather large arsenal of nuclear missiles, as does China. Not to mention Iran’s desire to acquire them as well.
“I will slow our development of future combat systems?” Is he fucking insane? What message does that send to our enemies?
The rest of his speech is just as disturbing to me. Sure, I would LOVE a world where nuclear weapons didn’t exist nor were needed, but the reality is we have them, they are here, and sadly we do indeed need them. I hope to God we never see another mushroom cloud rising over ANY city regardless of where it is – but only a madman would want to disarm his own country of the weapons that have and continue to serve as a major deterrent to our enemies.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUcX_lv5 ... re=relatedHe was asked a simple and straight forward question and he completely tap danced around it! Not to mention he plans on using Clinton advisors? The same advisors that lead to the result of inaction taken on the WTC and USS Cole bombings? Seriously. Not to mention he wants to “change the mindset that got us into war.” Excuse me for a moment, but I thought what got us into war was the act of terrorists killing 3000 innocent American citizens on OUR soil. I agree, once again, that the Iraq was a complete and absolute fuck up on the Bush administrations part – but I hardly see how the “mindset” of the American people are responsible.
This isn’t about whether not I like or dislike him personally. I am sure he is a good man with good intentions as he sees them. But, he is simply too naïve and too inexperienced to take the helm as the country’s leader.
Finally, as I've said before. I don't hate "liberals" I think that the average liberal is a decent, hardworking, intelligent American who wants to go work, raise their families, take vacations once a year and enjoy the freedoms as provided by the Constitution. Just as their conservative counterparts do. I DO have my issues with liberalism, even though I happen to ascribe to some of its beliefs (e.g the environment, animal rights, etc). What bothers me is that the Democratic party has indeed been hijacked by the extreme left.
if it's not readily available at walgreens, then i don't know where to get it.
