McCain/Palin v. Obama/Biden

[Kirby]

the Bush Doctrine is also called the Bush Doctrine.

[Malakriss]

the Khorum approach is also called Misinformation and Data Drowning. Stop quoting his useless posts btw, people have him on ignore for a reason.

[emoo]

Originally Posted by gn0me

Already posted, but listening to Palin try to bullshit her way through the Bush Doctrine is fucking painful. I almost feel bad for her. McCain picked a goddamn idiot. Ouch...

I'm unable to view that video.

[Heavens_Myst]

Originally Posted by Jedite

Him stuttering there appeared to me that he realized she probably didn't know what it was.

I think she got the question a whole lot more than you actually do. There are two definitions for what the doctrine is over the past 7 years and they are completely different from one another. Asking for clarification was the correct step.

[gn0me]

Originally Posted by Khorum

I think she did OK, especially considering how hostile her interviewer with.

Are you kidding me? It's Charlie Fucking Gibson! He was chosen because he would be the biggest softball pitcher of any of the major network anchors. I thought he was firm and fair and asked direct questions, but in no way "hostile" toward Palin. God forbid he do his goddamn job and try to get a straight answer for the American people about this complete unknown who might one day be our president.

Palin was confused as hell and had no idea how to address a simple question regarding the Bush Doctrine, the defining U.S. foreign policy principle of the past seven years. She couldn't even bullshit her way through it adequately after Gibson defined more narrowly what aspect of the doctrine he was getting at.

LMAO, maybe he should have asked her about the Wolfowitz Doctrine. I'm sure she would have had fun trying to answer that one! Lololol

[Jedite]

Originally Posted by Heavens_Myst

I think she got the question a whole lot more than you actually do. There are two definitions for what the doctrine is over the past 7 years and they are completely different from one another. Asking for clarification was the correct step.

So what are the two definitions you are refering to?

[Lleauaric~EW]

Originally Posted by Khorum

By what metric? The 90% reduction of violence in Iraq? The recent kills in Pakistan? The massive surge headed for Afghanistan? Muqtada al Sadr disarming his militia and entering the political process?

Oh wait, you're gonna try some victimization approach aren't you? Gonna squeal about the poor-poor murderers in Gitmo maybe? Gonna appeal to our inner ACLU-pinko about the miranda rights of people who tried to smuggle dirty bombs into the country?

Im not really sure WHO is winning, because conditions for a victory have never been defined.

Im assuming its just one of those things to justify massive, unneccessary military build up
"ARRRGGGHHHH.. We NEED That new Weapon System/Aircraft Carrier/Tank to fight ze terrorists!"

See, the problem is what we arent doing the things to REALLY kill Al Queda. The streets of Cairo, Islambad, Mogadishu, Istambul, Baghdad and Riyadh are filled to the brim with poor uneducated, easily manipulated kids that are being funneled into this mess.

Its like if you had a piece of shit in your living room, and you declared victory because you were killing all the flies.

And Khorum. Please.. Iraq is a fucking mess. Its not our fault, its been a fucking mess since Hammurabi. Its going to be a fucking mess long after we are dust. Once we leave the forces of that part of the world are going to tear that place apart. Saudi Arabia will be pulling on one end and Iran will be pulling on the other and the whole thing will, once again, unravel.
Neither one can afford for Iraq to be allied with the other. Sunnis and Shia have killed each other for 1,300 years, and they will continue to do so once given a little prod and the opportunity.
Talk about the Sunnis? Guess what, Sunni militia STILL refuse to be intergrated with Shia.
And another thing... The entire Anbar Awakening was pretty much bought and paid for. A girl who I work with's Brother works in MI and had the job of delivering backpacks full of cash to Tribal leaders. Look, I'm not complaining, it worked... but make no mistake...
Allegiances in that part of the world go to highest bidder.
They are going to milk us for every penny they can, then after we leave, look for some other Sugar Daddy.

Afghanistan? I tell you what... read Amazon.com: The Afghan Campaign: A novel: Steven Pressfield: Books.
You tell me what the difference between the shit sandwich Alexander had to eat in Afghanistan and the one we are gonna belly up to is?

None.. Do you know how many times Alexander had to "Surge" that area? SEVEN. He couldn't leave. He wanted India and China, but he kept being pulled back and bogged down dealing with the fucking Afghans.
And Alexanders counter insurgency wasnt a joke either. He put about 60% of the whole fucking country under the sword, and they still fought him.
Until he figured it out. And he didn't win the country with his military, but his brain.
These are the SAME people. They don't stop. They keep going, and fighting and dying and killing.

Land Wars in Asia = Fun.

[AladainAF]

I don't think he interviewed her bad. But this is certainly true:

I thought he was firm and fair and asked direct questions

And this is something we HAVEN'T seen yet in reference to Obama, Biden, McCain, or any candidate in 1996, 2000, or 2004.

[Khorum]

Originally Posted by Kirby

What the fuck are you talking about. It is not called the Wolfwitz Doctrine.

You're a fucking retard.

The application of pre-emptive, unilateral and distributed force to support full-spectrum dominance in a monopolar strategic posture began with the The Wolfowitz Doctrine in 1992. It was drafted by Paul Wolfowitz then heavily adapted by Colin Powell and Dick Cheney.

It laid out a plan of rapid pre-emptive and unilateral intervention in key strategic areas to suppress the emergence of another superpower rival. It entailed a small volunteer-only military and focused on highly-trained and efficient forces instead of large, set-piece forces. IE: EXACTLY what the Bush doctrine is, and it was EXACTLY the strategic posture Bill Clinton adopted during his tenure.

The so-called "Bush Doctrine" is __exactly__ the Wolfowitz Doctrine but with a social and economic components. The central components: pre-emptive, unilateral, and distributed strategic intervention remain the same.

Some pundits just decided to call it the "Bush Doctrine" to include Bush's social and economic addenda for developing regions like Africa, ostensibly for counterterrorism.

Originally Posted by Smocca

This is Charlie Gibson for gods sake. She was a joke.

Originally Posted by Jedite

Him stuttering there appeared to me that he realized she probably didn't know what it was.

Gibson got flummoxed when he realized she wasn't gonna give him the red meat he was looking for. A commitment to ANY doctrine, be it global containment, regressionist isolationism or the application of pre-emptive intervention would've brought one form of criticism or another, but the CORRECT answer was the one she gave: A president cannot, MUST NOT, ever take any strategic option off the table.

Frankly, I don't think McCain __OR__ Obama could've given the correct answer on that. They would've given a definitive answer which laid the groundwork for pigeonholing them into one course of action or another, and just to score political points too. She saw the trap, leaned in and pushed with the responsible position.

I'm a little disappointed with her criticism on Russia, since Russia has a genuine grievance with Georgia. But she did say that war should always be the last option. She handled it well enough and certainly a lot better than what I was expecting.

You want "smoked", here's SMOKED. At least Palin didn't falter and implode like Obama did, who had been reduced to LYING on national TV about having certain connections, getting called on it, then getting laughed out when he failed:

[Heavens_Myst]

Originally Posted by Jedite

So what are the two definitions you are refering to?

Are you a fucking idiot? The first definition was that the doctrine allowed for military action against countries that harbored terrorist groups that attacked us on September 11, 2001. Later it was defined as anticipatory self-defense, the pretext for invading Iraq.

The two definitions are completely separate philosophies.

[Smocca]

You forgot the third definition: his world view.

[Jedite]

Originally Posted by Heavens_Myst

Are you a fucking idiot? The first definition was that the doctrine allowed for military action against countries that harbored terrorist groups that attacked us on September 11, 2001. Later it was defined as anticipatory self-defense, the pretext for invading Iraq.

The two definitions are completely separate philosophies.

LOL I quoted both definitions a few posts back.

And she answered with neither.. She answered with the blanket response of Bush World views.

[I'm Rich Bitch]

Originally Posted by AladainAF

I don't think he interviewed her bad. But this is certainly true:



And this is something we HAVEN'T seen yet in reference to Obama, Biden, McCain, or any candidate in 1996, 2000, or 2004.

Did you see the Bill O'Reilly interview with Obama and Hillary?

[Khorum]

Originally Posted by Heavens_Myst

Are you a fucking idiot? The first definition was that the doctrine allowed for military action against countries that harbored terrorist groups that attacked us on September 11, 2001. Later it was defined as anticipatory self-defense, the pretext for invading Iraq.

The two definitions are completely separate philosophies.

It's pretty fucking clear these guys DON'T know what the distinction is. Luckily that's irrelevant since she gave the correct answer anyway: that no president should ever dismiss any strategic option in the pursuit of American interests.

Just as Clinton pursued the Wolfowitz Doctrine during his unilateral and preemptive attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq, Clinton ALSO committed immense diplomatic pressure to ensure UN and NATO participation in the Balkans. An American Chief Executive cannot---and MUST NOT---dismiss any strategic option during office.

I'm not sure Obama could've fielded that answer as well, neither would McCain, they're BOTH determined to yield the maximum political advantage with their respective bases and would've given one position or another, pigeonholing them into a posture that would look like "flip-flopping" if circumstances required a better mousetrap.

[Jedite]

Originally Posted by I'm Rich Bitch

Did you see the Bill O'Reilly interview with Obama and Hillary?

Im still waiting for McCain or Palin to go into the lions den like Obama and Hilary did. Democratic Lions den = Olbermann =)