Biden...Obama will be tested in his first 6 months.
 

Great...Biden even sees Obama as weak. I guess that is why earlier in the campaign before being nominated as VP he doubted Obama's experience to be President and in fact said the job did not lead itself to on the job training.

Just what America needs...Our enemies to test our new Weak commander in chief.

Regardless of who is Commander in Chief, the will be tested. True, McCain has already been tested, and we've seen his answers to the test...

Bomb, bomb, bomb...Bomb, Bomb Iran.

Bombing works, hence no terror attacks in the US since 9/11/2001. May be an ugly answer, and perhaps not the only answer, but the answer worked.

IMO, nobody is going to get 'tested'. Al Queda is near nil, Taliban couldn't organize an attack outside of the ME if it tried and the economy is so torched globally, nobody is making enough money to attack.

What you should be asking yourselves is whose tax plan over the next 4 years will leave you better or worse. Well, that and as a NRA member I couldn't vote for Obama because his stance on personal guns is way out of line with mine along with the majority of his supposed policies.

You'll pay for my $500 tax refund and my wife and I do pretty well. We're by no means poor. :D

I don't know about your definition of "works", but my definition of "works" is that nobody gets killed, including those who live in other countries.

Well your definition in war time is WRONG then :) Probably why you've never worked for DoD.

Eric's response reminded me of a movie where war was sanitized by computers assigning casualties to civilians who were then put to death in a "humane" manner. For the life of me I can't remember the name of the movie.

Bombs that don't kill :rofl: Let's just drop leaflets on the battlefield with smiley faces and valentine cards.

I will never ever, ever, understand people who think that all problems can be worked out diplomatically. It would be wonderful if that was true, but it just is not. So sadly, better have the bigger stick. Or risk taking a licking.

I type this as I drink coffee out of my Glock NRA cup :rofl:

This is typical "open mouth insert foot" syndrome. Biden wanting to brag about his international history knowledge wind up criticizing his own running mate.

I think whoever wins has will be tested:
1) Weak economy, global recession, massive deficit and future inflation.
2) Old infrastructure
3) Energy security and independence
4) Global warming
5) International threats (terrorism, Russian resurgence, Iran, N. Korea, and Iraq)

Pretty tough list of challenging issues.

I don't think that all problems could be solved diplomatically, but I certainly think that most of them could be!

We all behave (individuals and nations) based on two drivers: Fear of punishment with certain behavior/action and desire for the gains associated with a behavior/action. You can solve a lot of the world conflicts and problems by creating incentives and clearly identifying consequences.

The only exception is ideological believes. Reasoning sometimes flies out the window with those people. Even with those people, I would still use diplomacy as I use my big stick. After all, ideology is as idea that does not dye by the death of individuals. It dyes when defeated by another ideology!!

I'm guessing that is worth something in our world, but not sure what. And I'm not trying to be rude, just I think you're stating what everyone knows. However, employing an "ideology" as you put it takes some type of medium.

Kind of reminds me of the "enabling act" passed in Germany in 1933. It specifically stated that the increased powers were only as long as the current conflict lasted, which of course was forever.

"in war time" = forever

Name a year in the past 70 years when you believe we were not at war, and I will provide you with examples of where our soldiers were fighting at the time.

I know I stated the obvious, but you'll be surprised how overconfidence at times make one forget the basics.

We wanted to spread democracy in the Middle East and wanted to push for elections in the west bank and Gaza, while knowing fully that the facts on the ground will result in the election of Hamas. People in Gaza have not seen a single good day for decades, the stick has been very heavy on them for many years, be it from Israel or a corrupt Palestinian authority. Unemployment is more than 50%, majority of the population are living on UN aid, education is weak (almost non existent).. on and on. Where is the incentive for those kids who grow up with little education and a great sense of hopelessness? When someone approaches them and say go blow yourself up and we'll take care of your family and you'll go to heaven, what do you think some might say?

As far a medium for changing ideology, it is there (called majority of the Muslim/Arabic world) it just needs support.
- Let’s not preach democracy while supporting dictators
- Let's show our good side to the world. It is hard sometime to figure out how the US and it’s powerful appeal and culture that dictates to kids all over the world what to wear, what to listen to, what is cool to drive … etc, have such difficulty showing its good side???
- Let’s invest in our energy independence.

On a lighter note, when I visited Jordan a couple of years ago, I saw a little boutique in Amman called “50 Cents” with a large picture of the rapper 50 cents. I don’t think they were paying him any royalties, nevertheless kids are buying whatever his image is selling.;)

One good example was hitler. Most people thought back then that they could sit down and reason with him. The rest is history...

I agree there are people that you can indeed reason with...but those people bent on destroying you and who are already planning steps on how to do it, you dont reason with them.

War is awful, but the problem is that Obama wants to sit down and talk with everyone and that just will not work. There are certain scum-bag leaders that the President of the U.S should not give the time of day to, cough...cough Ahmadinejad and Obama does not understand that.

Correct, you cannot reason with extremists. But what you can do is have a policy that causes the extremists to lose support among the population.

As an example, I'll use the most destructive extremist/terrorist group in the last 200 years -- the KKK. At their height, they were much more dangerous than Al-Queda, Hamas, Hezbollah or any other Muslim group is today. They were responsible for tens of thousands of deaths over many decades, and at one point in the late 19th century, they had armies that fought actual large scale battles against the US military in various states in the South.

So how did we "deal" with them and make the problem go away? The solution is not easy, but it is very simple. When living conditions are bad (when there is poverty, hunger, violence, etc.), people tend to flock towards extremism and support anyone who promises "change". Sound familiar? That is how Hitler came to power. That is why Hamas was elected in Gaza, that is how the Taliban came to power in Afghanistan, and that is how the KKK became so popular in the South after the Civil War. Poor living conditions, poverty, and a very unhappy population is a recipe for extremism.

So how do you get rid of the extremists once they are in power? Well, if you fight against them with violence, you are only going to empower them and cause the local population to give them more support. The answer is to have a policy that causes the elimination of the poverty, hunger and violence that caused the people to flock to the extremists in the first place. Once that happens, the extremists will gradually lose their influence, and as was the case with the KKK, they will become irrelevent.

But you cannot defeat them using the military. President Grant learned that the hard way with the KKK, and Israel has learned the same lesson when dealing with Hamas and Hezbollah. They have been fighting for decades, with no end in sight and no improvement in their situation.

The more Union soldiers Grant sent down south to fight against the Klan, the more southerners went and joined the Klan. For each Klan member they killed, 10 more people joined up. The result of Grant's war against the Klan in the early 1870s was that the group to grew to several million members by the end of that decade.

Fighting against terrorists and extremists is like pouring water on an electrical fire. It seems like it will work, but it will just make it worse.

Apparently General Petraeus disagrees. He has come out in support of talking with one's enemies. Not giving them everything, not abandoning diplomatic preparation, but being prepared to talk.

I don't agree with everything Obama says, but I thought that his plan to sit down and talk to enemies was one of his better ones. Sure, carry a big stick. But the full phrase is "speak softly and carry a big stick" and that implies that talking comes first.

What he said is actually worse than what I posted. Here is what he said.

"It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We're about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here if you don't remember anything else I said. Watch, we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy."

"I can give you at least four or five scenarios from where it might originate," Biden said to Emerald City supporters, mentioning the Middle East and Russia as possibilities. "And he's gonna need help. And the kind of help he's gonna need is, he's gonna need you - not financially to help him - we're gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it's not gonna be apparent initially, it's not gonna be apparent that we're right."

I don't think that is the reason why no terror attacks since 9/11.
If they want it they will do it still, trust me. And I don't think 9/11 is the reason we bombed Iraq.
Someone posted a video of kids throwing stone at US mil guys a while back. Most people do not understand why they were throwing stones and called the kids idiots. You have to spend time in that part of world to really understand the minds of people. In that part of world, people kill their brothers for money and/or power. Bombing is just a short term solution.

I'm surprised at you my friend.

I read the entire article that this statement came from and Biden was not saying that Obama was weak at all.

I suggest that all of you that commented in this thread read the entire article and not allow "MrLabGuy" to distort the facts. http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalra...to-suppor.html

He did not outright say Obama was weak in this quote but eluded that he will be perceived as weak. Take all of Bidens comments about Obama in context of his latest gaff (especially the ones pre-VP selection)...This was an honest slip of the tongue.

Still say you're not in his camp...;)

Thanks for the entire text though...I did not look hard enough and most the news reports had bits and pieces.

I'll bet you Obama is not happy about his comments again. Do you really believe Obama liked what he had to say?

Actually I'm not in his camp or any camp. What I am, is honestly concerned that you continue to distort the statement of others to fit your own opinion.

Your continued decision to do this is disingenuous and makes an honest
debate based on the facts impossible.

It would be different if you were being sarcastic or even joking. Perhaps your approach would have some credibility but distorting someone's statements doesn't serve you well.

By your own admission you say "He did not outright say Obama was weak in this quote but eluded that he will be perceived as weak" Biden didn't elude that at all. The point is why take someone's statement and twist it for your own purpose? What's the value of doing that? Why not just tell the truth?
Is doing so really that difficult?

Biden does not think Obama is weak...He knows he is weak which explains his comment. He figures world powers will test his weakness which is why he opened his mouth in the first place. Biden has accused Obama of being weak and inexperienced in the past.

You say you don't support Obama and yet you go out of your way to defend him. You can't claim you are pushing fairness because I've not seen you go to the lengths you gp with Obama and Biden to defend McCain or Palin. Don't act like your above playing the role of politics. You're starting to come across as an elitist. I assure you that you are not always right.

I never said a word about Obama nor did i defend him. The context of 90% of my comments have to do with the inconsistencies in statements made by you and others. One of the best examples was regarding your wild out of context comment about Colin Powell playing the race card.

The fact that you continue to sensationalize and post inconsistencies and inaccuracies prompts me to point out them out. Get your story straight and it wouldn't be difficult to agree with you.

With regard to McCain and Palin it appears that according to you they can do no wrong so who can argue with that. Other than that like Obama and Biden I believe McCain and palin speak for themselves. With a forked tongue.

:confused:

Wrong again...I would need to hold my nose to vote for them and I've stated that clearly in several posts. I've decided to vote Barr this election to support a third party.

Good thing January starts a fresh year...After the election we can hopefully go back to getting along. :D

What is your point?

Lower level talks are one thing, having the President of the U.S. give this type of leader a face-to-face (like Obama wants to do) is not the right move.

McCain is all for lower level talks, but he would not give Ahmadinejad a one-on-one meeting before this happens and I back him on that.

Remember, Obama back pedaled on that and now says that "of course" there would be discussions before. Change, change, change :)

That is probably true but what is your point, we should just stop bombing?

I think that talk is cheap and is worth a try. Hopefully when you talk to someone you take them out of the small world they live in and make them think about the other person point of view.

Unfortunately people like Ahmadinejad are not going to listen to reason and when someone as important as the President meets with them face to face it almost legitimizes what they are doing in a sense. Not good at all without many lower level meetings first, IMO.

Wagner, I didn't know he changed his views on that as well. Guess you are right, he is all about change. :rofl:

Yes sir...change change change.

Vote Bob Barr and www.lp.org Be a real American :thumbup: :) IMO of course.

Petraeus and others have specifically supported the concept of leaders speaking directly with their enemies. Petraeus came out and disagreed with McCain's attack on Obama on this point. Nothing there about lower levels. Good interview, available on line.

I have the utmost respect for Petraeus, but he is a battlefield general discussing diplomacy :confused: :confused: :confused:

Yes, that is my point. That strategy doesn't work. Read post #16.

Your apparently under the idea that they haven't tried since 9/11, they most certainly 100% have. And they have been stopped.

Ask Hiroshima if "bombing is just a short term solution". Again, ugly but effective solution.

I know they have but that does not mean that they will stop and not try again. 9/11 was not the first attempt either, but did we stop 9/11? We have to built strong defenses. Airport security is still a joke.

Should have repeated Hiroshima in Afghanistan and Pakistan than to be effective. :stickpoke Bin laden is still on loose and we gave billions to Pakistan helping hide them. Different times...different beast now. ;)

I really hope you were being goofy on purpose to simply make a point, some how. I don't think the US was at risk at losing 1M lives in Iraq and Afghanistan combined.