Post by Rob W. Case on Sept 29, 2008 15:15:31 GMT -6
The first of three Presidential debates between Senators John McCain and Barack Obama has come and gone, and now comes the part where the American people have to think. They have to think about the reality of how the Candidates’ decision making will impact the welfare and livelihood of this country for the next four years. As for the mannerisms and rhetorical skills, I think Barack Obama seemed to have handled himself the best. As for the true substance of the issues being discussed, and the context for which they are handled, McCain more than proved his experience by his credentials.
The topic of the first debate was National Security. There has been no other time in the history of the United States where national security has been as important as it is right now. Sure, 4 years ago we said that also. Why? Because this same truth also applied 4 years ago. As the years go by, and the presidents come and go, men’s hearts grow in darker strains, and in those darker strains, they tend to get bolder and bolder in the desire to take action, until they are motivated enough to take action. Russia’s president Vladimir Putin demonstrated this well. Because of a pipeline that transported oil, Russia decided to simply invade Georgia to get it. Diplomacy does not work with evil people. What sense does it make to think that a man can be restrained by words, when actions are the only means proven to keep them in their place? It’s a sense of fear that keeps them in place, a sense of fear that they will be held accountable for their actions. A sense of fear is exactly what you need. In all of our major wars, the United States never just up and picked a nation to go to war with. With Iraq and Saddam Hussein, Hussein threatened the Western world. The United Nations put forth 17 resolutions for which Saddam had to honor. He violated all of them, and the United Nations never sought accountability. In principle, this is the nationalized version of the classic “undisciplined brat.” Sure, instead of “spanking” the child for purposely breaking the rules, they came to him and said, “Now that’s not a very nice thing to do,” and just left it at that. He balked at them and continued doing what he wanted to do. Can you blame him? We did what the UN failed to do, and that was ring in accountability. Saddam was defiant and unrepentant up until the very end. Even when the rope was tied around his neck, he still had no remorse for what he did. In the end, surprisingly, justice prevailed.
Principle is at stake in this election, and it is competing with emotional sensationalism, which is, to put it simply, whatever words make us feel good. It will be vital to choose our next candidate wisely, since the words that make us feel good now can completely deteriorate later as reality ushers in a new hell.
National Security is the single most important issue of the United States. After all, when the next president takes office, he will swear an oath, and that oath is, “I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” The job of the next president is to preserve by protecting Liberty and by protecting Liberty you have to be willing to use force when another is trying to take it away from us.
And now my analysis on the debate:
Topic: Iraq—Where both candidates were right
MCCAIN: I think the lessons of Iraq are very clear that you cannot have a failed strategy that will then cause you to nearly lose a conflict…… This strategy (meaning, the surge initiated by President Bush in early 2007) has succeeded. And we are winning in Iraq. And we will come home with victory and with honor. And that withdrawal is the result of every counterinsurgency that succeeds.
That is true. We are winning in Iraq now thanks to our troops under the leadership of General David Patreaus. Obama then got McCain with this line, “John, you like to pretend like the war started in 2007. You talk about the surge. The war started in 2003….” So what happened from 2003-2007?
1. Those leading the war effort in the Bush administration didn’t know what they were really up against. Can I count that as a strike against them? No, and I’ll tell you why. The Bush administration’s national security team has had most of their experience in dealing with Communism. Bush’s cabinet consisted of those who were mainly Cold War experts, and experts in the Persian Gulf War under President George H. W. Bush. In both wars, the United States was up against an organized army. This war is different. This war consists of domestic people who initiate their attacks as individuals. These people, as I said do not belong to an organized military entity. What drives them is their loyalty to Wahabi Islam, which is what Al Qaeda is all about. What we didn’t realize at the time was that we are fighting against individuals instead of an organized army. Since this is the first administration to actively deal with such a scenario, yes there will be mistakes, because there really isn’t that much experience prior. Sure, Al Qaeda initiated private attacks on U.S. Embassies and interests under Clinton, but the Clinton administration didn’t take action, and left those incidents as individual, isolated incidents. The Bush administration is the first administration to actively deal with this type of new enemy, and as such, mistakes will be made. Mistakes are always made when it’s your first time dealing with anything that you’ve had virtually no experience with prior. On your first day at a new job, it is only common sense to expect to make a mistake here and there, because you had no prior experience with the challenges heading towards you. That is the crux of it under the Bush administration. It isn’t recklessness or stupidity. It was lack of knowledge of the nature of the new enemy.
2. The second reason why we had no success at first was because of the lack of unity between Democrats and Republicans. The Democrats wanted the UN to handle it, and the Republicans case was, “well, the UN didn’t enforce its own rules, so we are going to go beyond them and protect our own interests.” You see, the Democrats of today have a globalist, one world mindset. They believe in international unity under the leadership of the United Nations. The problem with this is that time and time again, the UN has acted against the United States because the U.S. is a superpower and they do not like that. Republicans predominantly have the mindset that America should protect itself and its own interests, period. Their loyalty is not to the “world community,” but to securing itself. Now, under the same mindset, if other countries open democracies we will support them. The Republicans will mainly support democracies; the Democrats will consider with a moral equivalence, input from dictatorships.
As for Obama’s response on Iraq’s future, I think he made a very good point.
Obama: We are currently spending $10 billion a month in Iraq when they have a $79 billion surplus.
We should be getting money back from Iraq. We have a history of building prosperous structures all over the Arab world. Heck, we even built the tools for the Arab world to drill for oil decades ago, and how do they repay us today? They don’t. That is a very good question that would require sound debate.
Topic: The Threat of Iran
McCain: But have no doubt, but have no doubt that the Iranians continue on the path to the acquisition of a nuclear weapon as we speak tonight. And it is a threat not only in this region but around the world. What I'd also like to point out the Iranians are putting the most lethal IEDs into Iraq which are killing young Americans, there are special groups in Iran coming into Iraq and are being trained in Iran. There is the Republican Guard in Iran, which Senator Kyl had an amendment in order to declare them a sponsor of terror. Senator Obama said that would be provocative.
This is, purely and simply an act of war. One legal definition for an act of war is, “Anything that causes loss or damage as a result of hostilities or conflict.” The motive of Iran is to kill as many U.S. soldiers as they can, and they are working very hard to do so. The reason why Iran is training their soldiers to go into Iraq is to drive up the numbers on U.S. Casualties in Iraq. The hope for Iran is that the more people who get killed in Iraq, the more the anti-war Democrats in America will push to get us out of Iraq. Iran has sought the resources of Iraq for decades. If U.S. soldiers retreat in Iraq, then Iran will have the capability to take over Iraq’s oil supply and expand its influence.
OBAMA: … [T]he single thing that has strengthened Iran over the last several years has been the war in Iraq. Iraq was Iran's mortal enemy. That was cleared away. And what we've seen over the last several years is Iran's influence grow. They have funded Hezbollah, they have funded Hamas, they have gone from zero centrifuges to 4,000 centrifuges to develop a nuclear weapon.
This remark is credible. The war in Iraq has eliminated Saddam Hussein, and in so doing, Iran feels more confident to overtake Iraq since, under Saddam, Iraq worked against Iran for as long as it has. America gave Saddam weapons for his war with Iran. This was done to contain Iran so that while Iran and Iraq were fighting against each other, we could focus more on defeating the Soviet Union. With Hussein gone, and a Democracy in place in Iraq, Iran feels more empowered to overtake Iraq.
But here is where Obama falls. He says, “Now here's what we need to do. We do need tougher sanctions.” Folks, this is what Bush has been doing since Ahmadinejad took power in 2005. Does it work? Not really. It is basically a slap in the hand. Sanctions are merely political trade tools, mainly put in place by the United Nations (UN) and the European Union (EU).
Enclosed in the link below is a story relating to sanctions, so you can better understand what they do.
www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6481765,00.html
The UN has placed sanctions on Iran, the European Union has as well, and the United States has also done so.
Iran also has heavy deals pending with Russia.
Topic: Russia
Obama: It is absolutely important that we have a unified alliance and that we explain to the Russians that you cannot be a 21st-century superpower, or power, and act like a 20th-century dictatorship.
Russia has been working for several years now to reclaim the glory they once had at the start of the 20th Century, and that is by a communist dictatorship. Two missionaries that I have met, one of whom is a native Russian married to an American, told me that every time you watch the media there, all you get is good out of Putin. Everything Putin does is perceived in a positive light. We in America know better. He may have control of the media in his country, but we are taking note of his actions, and those actions are leading to a darker reality that we will one day have to confront.
MCCAIN: Well, I was interested in Senator Obama's reaction to the Russian aggression against Georgia. His first statement was, "Both sides ought to show restraint." Again, a little bit of naivete there. He doesn't understand that Russia committed serious aggression against Georgia. And Russia has now become a nation fueled by petro-dollars that is basically a KGB apparatchik-run government.I looked into Mr. Putin's eyes, and I saw three letters, a "K," a "G," and a "B." And their aggression in Georgia is not acceptable behavior. I don't believe we're going to go back to the Cold War. I am sure that that will not happen. But I do believe that we need to bolster our friends and allies. And that wasn't just about a problem between Georgia and Russia. It had everything to do with energy. There's a pipeline that runs from the Caspian through Georgia through Turkey. And, of course, we know that the Russians control other sources of energy into Europe, which they have used from time to time.
McCain is on to something interesting. Russia has been working hard over the past several years rebuilding its empire. As the efforts continue to roll along, Vladimir Putin is gaining much more confidence and getting bolder in it. Russia has made alliances with oil producing nations that hate the United States such as Iran and Venezuela. Since we are having problems with Iran, a strengthened Russia, who has deals going on with them, will do what they think they have to do in order to preserve those deals. That is one of the main reasons why we have to watch them. When the U.S. went into Iraq, Russia supplied the insurgency with technical equipment to assist in combating our troops.
Missile Defense:
Russia always gets testy when America and her allies move towards SDI, missile defense shields. Recently, Poland sought to acquire missile defense for its country, and Putin responded with a nuclear threat on that country. Putin was angry when we wanted to pull out of the ABM Treaty in 2001 and has never forgotten it since.
MCCAIN: But in the case of missile defense, Senator Obama said it had to be, quote, "proven." That wasn't proven when Ronald Reagan said we would do SDI, which is missile defense. And it was major -- a major factor in bringing about the end of the Cold War.
Folks, that is true. Russia does not want the United States to have missile defense. They want to be able to make America powerless, and if America is powerless, then it will not try to stop them or any dictatorship for that matter, should they make a move. This is a global thing. The United Nations and many under the United Nations usually decide in matters that are against the sole interests of the United States. In fact, the United States and Israel are the two biggest stumbling blocks for the international strategy that they are trying to achieve, and that is a one world global state. But anyway, back to missile defense.
Obama: And we -- we are spending billions of dollars on missile defense. And I actually believe that we need missile defense, because of Iran and North Korea and the potential for them to obtain or to launch nuclear weapons, but I also believe that, when we are only spending a few hundred million dollars on nuclear proliferation, then we're making a mistake.
I’m going to stop it right there for a moment. Obama believes in missile defense? That’s news to me! In a video that surfaced in February of this year, Obama said, “….I will cut tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending. I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems. I will not weaponize space. I will slow our development of future combat systems.” He then went on to say, “I will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons. To seek that goal, I will not develop new nuclear weapons; I will seek a global ban on the production of fissile material; and I will negotiate with Russia to take our ICBMs off hair-trigger alert, and to achieve deep cuts in our nuclear arsenals.”
www.youtube.com/watch?v=7o84PE871BE
An ICBM stands for intercontinental ballistic missile. What that is, is a missile that is capable of traveling from one continent to another. So, if someone attacked us, we could respond by sending one of these ICBM’s without possibly having to leave the country. He wants to get rid of them. He wants to stop making nuclear weapons in a world where they are making nuclear weapons. When John McCain said,” Senator Obama said it had to be, quote, "proven" regarding missile defense. Folks, it has been proven time and time again. Look at what has happened since 2005.
Navy: Missile Defense Test Successful
www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,175955,00.html (Nov.7th, 2005)
Excerpt: The Navy intercepted and destroyed a warhead as it separated from its booster rocket during a test Thursday off Hawaii — the first time a ship at sea has shot down a multi-stage missile.
US activates missile defense amid N.Korea dispute
By Will Dunham Tue Jun 20, 5:13 PM ET
Since the link is not active anymore, here is just an excerpt:
The United States has built a complex of interceptor missiles, advanced radar stations and data relays designed to detect and shoot down an enemy missile. Test results have been mixed, but officials had previously said the system could be activated on short notice.
Successful missile intercept reported in US sea-based defense test
(June 22nd, 2006)
www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=060623001445.r0o3j49z&show_article=1
Excerpt: A US warship successfully shot down a target missile warhead over the Pacific in a test of a sea-based missile defense system, the US military said. A Japanese destroyer performed surveillance and tracking exercises during the test, marking the first time any US ally has taken part in a US missile defense intercept test, the US Missile Defense Agency said. The test came amid a confrontation with North Korea over its preparations to launch a long-range missile.
It has been proven when it has been used. Obama, months after saying it was unproven said in the debate that it was needed. Is he just saying that it is needed so that he can get elected?
Topic: Negotiations and Diplomacy
Obama: But we are also going to have to, I believe, engage in tough direct diplomacy with Iran and this is a major difference I have with Senator McCain, this notion by not talking to people we are punishing them has not worked. It has not worked in Iran, it has not worked in North Korea. In each instance, our efforts of isolation have actually accelerated their efforts to get nuclear weapons. That will change when I'm president of the United States.
That is wrong and misleading. First of all, it’s not as if Bush has been isolating himself from meeting with these rogue leaders. When Clinton talked with North Korea, it was Madelyn Albright, his Secretary of State who presented him. When we deal with North Korea, it has been Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, or some other diplomat. Bush never sat directly with Kim Jong Il of North Korea face to face, and he doesn’t need to. When you have an aggressive entity, and remember, North Korea started threatening us in 2002, you have to be wise in how you conduct those meetings. Then there is the fact that you cannot negotiate with someone who is non-negotiable to begin with. They want what they want. You know their nature, and when that nature reveals evil in all its forms (killings of those confronting the government, the persecution of Christians, and so forth), you obviously can’t expect them to honor the barriers of an agreement or a treaty. Madelyn Albright made an agreement with the North Koreans and Clinton supported it. The Clinton administration was responsible for the North Koreans getting the nuclear capabilities it has now. The Clinton administration trusted these people. The North Koreans said that it was going to be used for power. Clinton, Albright, and oh yes—Jimmy Carter! Carter was very instrumental in all of this as well. So, under these three people, Clinton gave them what they asked for. Then, in 2002, North Korea started threatening the United States. After being asked what happened on Meet the Press with former Clinton Secretary Madelyn Albright, she responded with the answer, “they cheated.” You see, there is no wisdom there. There are a lot of anti-American countries now with the capacity to strike us thanks to this mindset that everyone can be trusted going in. The North Korea Government played them for fools, and the Bush administration had to deal with the consequences of those previous, foolish actions.
MCCAIN: Senator Obama twice said in debates he would sit down with Ahmadinejad, Chavez and Raul Castro without precondition. Without precondition.
I want to stop right there for a moment. Preconditions are factors that are necessary to exist before action can take place. Earlier this year, when McCain said he wanted to have numerous townhall meetings, Obama set to have preconditions. Too many as a matter of fact. So he would be willing to have preconditions with McCain and not treacherous dictators?
McCain: Here is Ahmadinenene (ph), Ahmadinejad, who is, Ahmadinejad, who is now in New York, talking about the extermination of the State of Israel, of wiping Israel off the map, and we're going to sit down, without precondition, across the table, to legitimize and give a propaganda platform to a person that is espousing the extermination of the state of Israel, and therefore then giving them more credence in the world arena and therefore saying, they've probably been doing the right thing, because you will sit down across the table from them and that will legitimize their illegal behavior.
He then continues…..
McCain: What Senator Obama doesn't seem to understand that if without precondition you sit down across the table from someone who has called Israel a "stinking corpse," and wants to destroy that country and wipe it off the map, you legitimize those comments. This is dangerous. It isn't just naive; it's dangerous.
Obama said of his preconditions position.
OBAMA: Senator McCain mentioned Henry Kissinger, who's one of his advisers, who, along with five recent secretaries of state, just said that we should meet with Iran -- guess what -- without precondition. This is one of your own advisers.
This is how McCain responded….
MCCAIN: By the way, my friend, Dr. Kissinger, who's been my friend for 35 years, would be interested to hear this conversation and Senator Obama's depiction of his -- of his positions on the issue. I've known him for 35 years.….Look, Dr. Kissinger did not say that he would approve of face-to- face meetings between the president of the United States and the president -- and Ahmadinejad. He did not say that.”OBAMA: (sarcastic) Of course not.
When Henry Kissinger was confronted about this exchange, he wrote a response.
www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/jpodhoretz/33581
To Steve Hayes of the Weekly Standard:
“Senator McCain is right. I would not recommend the next President of the United States engage in talks with Iran at the Presidential level. My views on this issue are entirely compatible with the views of my friend Senator John McCain. We do not agree on everything, but we do agree that any negotiations with Iran must be geared to reality.”
Folks, this is one of the most important elections ever. It will either make us, or break us. I think it would be safe to say that most Americans are not aware how close the next president is to enacting laws that may either kill us or save us. And if those policies don’t go as far as to kill us, they can lead to the killing of our liberties, our personal freedoms, and so forth. This country is vulnerable in so many ways. People, especially young people, are not aware of their history, and too many people lack the moral conviction that it takes to preserve this country. Our founding Fathers thought it was vital to get Bibles sent to the troops and all levels of government, since God was the only writer of Liberty. Liberty could only be brought out by God, and not people who were driven by their self-interests. The only solution to get America on track is to get informed, do research, find the functions of how things work, and see which candidate can most effectively aide those functions. Start a personal relationship with God, because the way things are going now, selfish ambitions are ruling the day, and because we are making them our gods, we are being blinded by what threatens us as a nation. And when we are blinded, we are ripened for a takeover by those who seek to harm us most.
The topic of the first debate was National Security. There has been no other time in the history of the United States where national security has been as important as it is right now. Sure, 4 years ago we said that also. Why? Because this same truth also applied 4 years ago. As the years go by, and the presidents come and go, men’s hearts grow in darker strains, and in those darker strains, they tend to get bolder and bolder in the desire to take action, until they are motivated enough to take action. Russia’s president Vladimir Putin demonstrated this well. Because of a pipeline that transported oil, Russia decided to simply invade Georgia to get it. Diplomacy does not work with evil people. What sense does it make to think that a man can be restrained by words, when actions are the only means proven to keep them in their place? It’s a sense of fear that keeps them in place, a sense of fear that they will be held accountable for their actions. A sense of fear is exactly what you need. In all of our major wars, the United States never just up and picked a nation to go to war with. With Iraq and Saddam Hussein, Hussein threatened the Western world. The United Nations put forth 17 resolutions for which Saddam had to honor. He violated all of them, and the United Nations never sought accountability. In principle, this is the nationalized version of the classic “undisciplined brat.” Sure, instead of “spanking” the child for purposely breaking the rules, they came to him and said, “Now that’s not a very nice thing to do,” and just left it at that. He balked at them and continued doing what he wanted to do. Can you blame him? We did what the UN failed to do, and that was ring in accountability. Saddam was defiant and unrepentant up until the very end. Even when the rope was tied around his neck, he still had no remorse for what he did. In the end, surprisingly, justice prevailed.
Principle is at stake in this election, and it is competing with emotional sensationalism, which is, to put it simply, whatever words make us feel good. It will be vital to choose our next candidate wisely, since the words that make us feel good now can completely deteriorate later as reality ushers in a new hell.
National Security is the single most important issue of the United States. After all, when the next president takes office, he will swear an oath, and that oath is, “I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” The job of the next president is to preserve by protecting Liberty and by protecting Liberty you have to be willing to use force when another is trying to take it away from us.
And now my analysis on the debate:
Topic: Iraq—Where both candidates were right
MCCAIN: I think the lessons of Iraq are very clear that you cannot have a failed strategy that will then cause you to nearly lose a conflict…… This strategy (meaning, the surge initiated by President Bush in early 2007) has succeeded. And we are winning in Iraq. And we will come home with victory and with honor. And that withdrawal is the result of every counterinsurgency that succeeds.
That is true. We are winning in Iraq now thanks to our troops under the leadership of General David Patreaus. Obama then got McCain with this line, “John, you like to pretend like the war started in 2007. You talk about the surge. The war started in 2003….” So what happened from 2003-2007?
1. Those leading the war effort in the Bush administration didn’t know what they were really up against. Can I count that as a strike against them? No, and I’ll tell you why. The Bush administration’s national security team has had most of their experience in dealing with Communism. Bush’s cabinet consisted of those who were mainly Cold War experts, and experts in the Persian Gulf War under President George H. W. Bush. In both wars, the United States was up against an organized army. This war is different. This war consists of domestic people who initiate their attacks as individuals. These people, as I said do not belong to an organized military entity. What drives them is their loyalty to Wahabi Islam, which is what Al Qaeda is all about. What we didn’t realize at the time was that we are fighting against individuals instead of an organized army. Since this is the first administration to actively deal with such a scenario, yes there will be mistakes, because there really isn’t that much experience prior. Sure, Al Qaeda initiated private attacks on U.S. Embassies and interests under Clinton, but the Clinton administration didn’t take action, and left those incidents as individual, isolated incidents. The Bush administration is the first administration to actively deal with this type of new enemy, and as such, mistakes will be made. Mistakes are always made when it’s your first time dealing with anything that you’ve had virtually no experience with prior. On your first day at a new job, it is only common sense to expect to make a mistake here and there, because you had no prior experience with the challenges heading towards you. That is the crux of it under the Bush administration. It isn’t recklessness or stupidity. It was lack of knowledge of the nature of the new enemy.
2. The second reason why we had no success at first was because of the lack of unity between Democrats and Republicans. The Democrats wanted the UN to handle it, and the Republicans case was, “well, the UN didn’t enforce its own rules, so we are going to go beyond them and protect our own interests.” You see, the Democrats of today have a globalist, one world mindset. They believe in international unity under the leadership of the United Nations. The problem with this is that time and time again, the UN has acted against the United States because the U.S. is a superpower and they do not like that. Republicans predominantly have the mindset that America should protect itself and its own interests, period. Their loyalty is not to the “world community,” but to securing itself. Now, under the same mindset, if other countries open democracies we will support them. The Republicans will mainly support democracies; the Democrats will consider with a moral equivalence, input from dictatorships.
As for Obama’s response on Iraq’s future, I think he made a very good point.
Obama: We are currently spending $10 billion a month in Iraq when they have a $79 billion surplus.
We should be getting money back from Iraq. We have a history of building prosperous structures all over the Arab world. Heck, we even built the tools for the Arab world to drill for oil decades ago, and how do they repay us today? They don’t. That is a very good question that would require sound debate.
Topic: The Threat of Iran
McCain: But have no doubt, but have no doubt that the Iranians continue on the path to the acquisition of a nuclear weapon as we speak tonight. And it is a threat not only in this region but around the world. What I'd also like to point out the Iranians are putting the most lethal IEDs into Iraq which are killing young Americans, there are special groups in Iran coming into Iraq and are being trained in Iran. There is the Republican Guard in Iran, which Senator Kyl had an amendment in order to declare them a sponsor of terror. Senator Obama said that would be provocative.
This is, purely and simply an act of war. One legal definition for an act of war is, “Anything that causes loss or damage as a result of hostilities or conflict.” The motive of Iran is to kill as many U.S. soldiers as they can, and they are working very hard to do so. The reason why Iran is training their soldiers to go into Iraq is to drive up the numbers on U.S. Casualties in Iraq. The hope for Iran is that the more people who get killed in Iraq, the more the anti-war Democrats in America will push to get us out of Iraq. Iran has sought the resources of Iraq for decades. If U.S. soldiers retreat in Iraq, then Iran will have the capability to take over Iraq’s oil supply and expand its influence.
OBAMA: … [T]he single thing that has strengthened Iran over the last several years has been the war in Iraq. Iraq was Iran's mortal enemy. That was cleared away. And what we've seen over the last several years is Iran's influence grow. They have funded Hezbollah, they have funded Hamas, they have gone from zero centrifuges to 4,000 centrifuges to develop a nuclear weapon.
This remark is credible. The war in Iraq has eliminated Saddam Hussein, and in so doing, Iran feels more confident to overtake Iraq since, under Saddam, Iraq worked against Iran for as long as it has. America gave Saddam weapons for his war with Iran. This was done to contain Iran so that while Iran and Iraq were fighting against each other, we could focus more on defeating the Soviet Union. With Hussein gone, and a Democracy in place in Iraq, Iran feels more empowered to overtake Iraq.
But here is where Obama falls. He says, “Now here's what we need to do. We do need tougher sanctions.” Folks, this is what Bush has been doing since Ahmadinejad took power in 2005. Does it work? Not really. It is basically a slap in the hand. Sanctions are merely political trade tools, mainly put in place by the United Nations (UN) and the European Union (EU).
Enclosed in the link below is a story relating to sanctions, so you can better understand what they do.
www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6481765,00.html
The UN has placed sanctions on Iran, the European Union has as well, and the United States has also done so.
Iran also has heavy deals pending with Russia.
Topic: Russia
Obama: It is absolutely important that we have a unified alliance and that we explain to the Russians that you cannot be a 21st-century superpower, or power, and act like a 20th-century dictatorship.
Russia has been working for several years now to reclaim the glory they once had at the start of the 20th Century, and that is by a communist dictatorship. Two missionaries that I have met, one of whom is a native Russian married to an American, told me that every time you watch the media there, all you get is good out of Putin. Everything Putin does is perceived in a positive light. We in America know better. He may have control of the media in his country, but we are taking note of his actions, and those actions are leading to a darker reality that we will one day have to confront.
MCCAIN: Well, I was interested in Senator Obama's reaction to the Russian aggression against Georgia. His first statement was, "Both sides ought to show restraint." Again, a little bit of naivete there. He doesn't understand that Russia committed serious aggression against Georgia. And Russia has now become a nation fueled by petro-dollars that is basically a KGB apparatchik-run government.I looked into Mr. Putin's eyes, and I saw three letters, a "K," a "G," and a "B." And their aggression in Georgia is not acceptable behavior. I don't believe we're going to go back to the Cold War. I am sure that that will not happen. But I do believe that we need to bolster our friends and allies. And that wasn't just about a problem between Georgia and Russia. It had everything to do with energy. There's a pipeline that runs from the Caspian through Georgia through Turkey. And, of course, we know that the Russians control other sources of energy into Europe, which they have used from time to time.
McCain is on to something interesting. Russia has been working hard over the past several years rebuilding its empire. As the efforts continue to roll along, Vladimir Putin is gaining much more confidence and getting bolder in it. Russia has made alliances with oil producing nations that hate the United States such as Iran and Venezuela. Since we are having problems with Iran, a strengthened Russia, who has deals going on with them, will do what they think they have to do in order to preserve those deals. That is one of the main reasons why we have to watch them. When the U.S. went into Iraq, Russia supplied the insurgency with technical equipment to assist in combating our troops.
Missile Defense:
Russia always gets testy when America and her allies move towards SDI, missile defense shields. Recently, Poland sought to acquire missile defense for its country, and Putin responded with a nuclear threat on that country. Putin was angry when we wanted to pull out of the ABM Treaty in 2001 and has never forgotten it since.
MCCAIN: But in the case of missile defense, Senator Obama said it had to be, quote, "proven." That wasn't proven when Ronald Reagan said we would do SDI, which is missile defense. And it was major -- a major factor in bringing about the end of the Cold War.
Folks, that is true. Russia does not want the United States to have missile defense. They want to be able to make America powerless, and if America is powerless, then it will not try to stop them or any dictatorship for that matter, should they make a move. This is a global thing. The United Nations and many under the United Nations usually decide in matters that are against the sole interests of the United States. In fact, the United States and Israel are the two biggest stumbling blocks for the international strategy that they are trying to achieve, and that is a one world global state. But anyway, back to missile defense.
Obama: And we -- we are spending billions of dollars on missile defense. And I actually believe that we need missile defense, because of Iran and North Korea and the potential for them to obtain or to launch nuclear weapons, but I also believe that, when we are only spending a few hundred million dollars on nuclear proliferation, then we're making a mistake.
I’m going to stop it right there for a moment. Obama believes in missile defense? That’s news to me! In a video that surfaced in February of this year, Obama said, “….I will cut tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending. I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems. I will not weaponize space. I will slow our development of future combat systems.” He then went on to say, “I will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons. To seek that goal, I will not develop new nuclear weapons; I will seek a global ban on the production of fissile material; and I will negotiate with Russia to take our ICBMs off hair-trigger alert, and to achieve deep cuts in our nuclear arsenals.”
www.youtube.com/watch?v=7o84PE871BE
An ICBM stands for intercontinental ballistic missile. What that is, is a missile that is capable of traveling from one continent to another. So, if someone attacked us, we could respond by sending one of these ICBM’s without possibly having to leave the country. He wants to get rid of them. He wants to stop making nuclear weapons in a world where they are making nuclear weapons. When John McCain said,” Senator Obama said it had to be, quote, "proven" regarding missile defense. Folks, it has been proven time and time again. Look at what has happened since 2005.
Navy: Missile Defense Test Successful
www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,175955,00.html (Nov.7th, 2005)
Excerpt: The Navy intercepted and destroyed a warhead as it separated from its booster rocket during a test Thursday off Hawaii — the first time a ship at sea has shot down a multi-stage missile.
US activates missile defense amid N.Korea dispute
By Will Dunham Tue Jun 20, 5:13 PM ET
Since the link is not active anymore, here is just an excerpt:
The United States has built a complex of interceptor missiles, advanced radar stations and data relays designed to detect and shoot down an enemy missile. Test results have been mixed, but officials had previously said the system could be activated on short notice.
Successful missile intercept reported in US sea-based defense test
(June 22nd, 2006)
www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=060623001445.r0o3j49z&show_article=1
Excerpt: A US warship successfully shot down a target missile warhead over the Pacific in a test of a sea-based missile defense system, the US military said. A Japanese destroyer performed surveillance and tracking exercises during the test, marking the first time any US ally has taken part in a US missile defense intercept test, the US Missile Defense Agency said. The test came amid a confrontation with North Korea over its preparations to launch a long-range missile.
It has been proven when it has been used. Obama, months after saying it was unproven said in the debate that it was needed. Is he just saying that it is needed so that he can get elected?
Topic: Negotiations and Diplomacy
Obama: But we are also going to have to, I believe, engage in tough direct diplomacy with Iran and this is a major difference I have with Senator McCain, this notion by not talking to people we are punishing them has not worked. It has not worked in Iran, it has not worked in North Korea. In each instance, our efforts of isolation have actually accelerated their efforts to get nuclear weapons. That will change when I'm president of the United States.
That is wrong and misleading. First of all, it’s not as if Bush has been isolating himself from meeting with these rogue leaders. When Clinton talked with North Korea, it was Madelyn Albright, his Secretary of State who presented him. When we deal with North Korea, it has been Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, or some other diplomat. Bush never sat directly with Kim Jong Il of North Korea face to face, and he doesn’t need to. When you have an aggressive entity, and remember, North Korea started threatening us in 2002, you have to be wise in how you conduct those meetings. Then there is the fact that you cannot negotiate with someone who is non-negotiable to begin with. They want what they want. You know their nature, and when that nature reveals evil in all its forms (killings of those confronting the government, the persecution of Christians, and so forth), you obviously can’t expect them to honor the barriers of an agreement or a treaty. Madelyn Albright made an agreement with the North Koreans and Clinton supported it. The Clinton administration was responsible for the North Koreans getting the nuclear capabilities it has now. The Clinton administration trusted these people. The North Koreans said that it was going to be used for power. Clinton, Albright, and oh yes—Jimmy Carter! Carter was very instrumental in all of this as well. So, under these three people, Clinton gave them what they asked for. Then, in 2002, North Korea started threatening the United States. After being asked what happened on Meet the Press with former Clinton Secretary Madelyn Albright, she responded with the answer, “they cheated.” You see, there is no wisdom there. There are a lot of anti-American countries now with the capacity to strike us thanks to this mindset that everyone can be trusted going in. The North Korea Government played them for fools, and the Bush administration had to deal with the consequences of those previous, foolish actions.
MCCAIN: Senator Obama twice said in debates he would sit down with Ahmadinejad, Chavez and Raul Castro without precondition. Without precondition.
I want to stop right there for a moment. Preconditions are factors that are necessary to exist before action can take place. Earlier this year, when McCain said he wanted to have numerous townhall meetings, Obama set to have preconditions. Too many as a matter of fact. So he would be willing to have preconditions with McCain and not treacherous dictators?
McCain: Here is Ahmadinenene (ph), Ahmadinejad, who is, Ahmadinejad, who is now in New York, talking about the extermination of the State of Israel, of wiping Israel off the map, and we're going to sit down, without precondition, across the table, to legitimize and give a propaganda platform to a person that is espousing the extermination of the state of Israel, and therefore then giving them more credence in the world arena and therefore saying, they've probably been doing the right thing, because you will sit down across the table from them and that will legitimize their illegal behavior.
He then continues…..
McCain: What Senator Obama doesn't seem to understand that if without precondition you sit down across the table from someone who has called Israel a "stinking corpse," and wants to destroy that country and wipe it off the map, you legitimize those comments. This is dangerous. It isn't just naive; it's dangerous.
Obama said of his preconditions position.
OBAMA: Senator McCain mentioned Henry Kissinger, who's one of his advisers, who, along with five recent secretaries of state, just said that we should meet with Iran -- guess what -- without precondition. This is one of your own advisers.
This is how McCain responded….
MCCAIN: By the way, my friend, Dr. Kissinger, who's been my friend for 35 years, would be interested to hear this conversation and Senator Obama's depiction of his -- of his positions on the issue. I've known him for 35 years.….Look, Dr. Kissinger did not say that he would approve of face-to- face meetings between the president of the United States and the president -- and Ahmadinejad. He did not say that.”OBAMA: (sarcastic) Of course not.
When Henry Kissinger was confronted about this exchange, he wrote a response.
www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/jpodhoretz/33581
To Steve Hayes of the Weekly Standard:
“Senator McCain is right. I would not recommend the next President of the United States engage in talks with Iran at the Presidential level. My views on this issue are entirely compatible with the views of my friend Senator John McCain. We do not agree on everything, but we do agree that any negotiations with Iran must be geared to reality.”
Folks, this is one of the most important elections ever. It will either make us, or break us. I think it would be safe to say that most Americans are not aware how close the next president is to enacting laws that may either kill us or save us. And if those policies don’t go as far as to kill us, they can lead to the killing of our liberties, our personal freedoms, and so forth. This country is vulnerable in so many ways. People, especially young people, are not aware of their history, and too many people lack the moral conviction that it takes to preserve this country. Our founding Fathers thought it was vital to get Bibles sent to the troops and all levels of government, since God was the only writer of Liberty. Liberty could only be brought out by God, and not people who were driven by their self-interests. The only solution to get America on track is to get informed, do research, find the functions of how things work, and see which candidate can most effectively aide those functions. Start a personal relationship with God, because the way things are going now, selfish ambitions are ruling the day, and because we are making them our gods, we are being blinded by what threatens us as a nation. And when we are blinded, we are ripened for a takeover by those who seek to harm us most.