Here's some substance: Obama's plans for the US military

<>
Actually, Obama wants to increase defense spending. He wants to add 65,000 troops to the Army and recruit 27,000 more Marines. Why? To fight terrorism.

He wants the American military to "stay on the offense, from Djibouti to Kandahar," and he believes that "the ability to put boots on the ground will be critical in eliminating the shadowy terrorist networks we now face." He wants to ensure that we continue to have "the strongest, best-equipped military in the world."

Obama never once says that military force should be used only as a last resort. Rather, he insists that "no president should ever hesitate to use force -- unilaterally if necessary," not only "to protect ourselves . . . when we are attacked," but also to protect "our vital interests" when they are "imminently threatened." That's known as preemptive military action. It won't reassure those around the world who worry about letting an American president decide what a "vital interest" is and when it is "imminently threatened."

<>

You can read more about why neoconservatives are happy about Obama:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/27/AR2007042702027.html

One more telling clip:

<>
Obama talks about "rogue nations," "hostile dictators," "muscular alliances" and maintaining "a strong nuclear deterrent." He talks about how we need to "seize" the "American moment." We must "begin the world anew." This is realism? This is a left-liberal foreign policy?
<>

Now can we get back to the platitudes and hollow gospel of affirmation?

Appalling isn't it?

K&R

and concisely stated in the quotes given above. The US intervened with the military in Greece and Turkey, without going to the UN, because it was a "vital interest". Ditto intervening in the event of genocide.

Right?

Obama's always taking risky positions. :sarcasm: Progressives voting for Obama are being pwned.

If he ran as what he is, a Clintonian Democrat it would be fine but he is fooling folks into thinking he is Paul Wellstone reincarnated.

Just more of the same. It seems it really doesn't matter whom we send to the White House. I am not real "hopeful."

It's duplicitous on a level I'm not okay with, even for a politician. I think he could beat McCain more easily than Clinton. But he is by no means any less centrist than she is and I fear he may prove himself more conservative. I also fear that by claiming the title "progressive" he will permanently confuse young people. Not to mention that pushing "progressive" to the center is going to push the center to the far right and the far right into god-knows. And real progressives: leftist extremists? Who knows.

Oh my god, he isn't going to hesitate to use force, unilaterally, to protect ourselves and our interests if there's an imminent threat.

Ths US Defense position since 1776 and the same Defense position of every country in the world and international law.

Could you guys grow up. Obama did not take your puppy.

...so can you tell me: Is this 'cause he's still talking about invading Pakistan, or are we just going to nuke them? And is he planning on playing policeman in Kenya?

I always thought you had more integrity than to repeat blatant lies like that. And isn't it ironic that there's outrage over Rwanda and Darfur, but fearmongering over the possibility of intervening in Kenya based on the person who would do it. Sick.

has been US policy since 1947. You can't pretend it's a declaration that Obama will pursue anything like a neo-con agenda. Nor would Hillary.

I thought I heard in one of the debates that he said he did believe in preemptive strikes - but every Obama supporter I know has said I must have heard incorrectly. Glad to know I don't have to save to try to afford a hearing aid quite yet!

Afghanistan and Pakistan, to flush out the Taliban. Iraq - shouldn't have happened, Iran should also not happen. Hillary= Iraq war and Kyl-Lieberman. A candidate would be foolish to say that they would not aggressively defend the country. It's having the correct judgment as to which situations to handle in that fashion that is most important.

:rofl:

:rofl:

I don't agree with every single Democratic platform. Sorry. Absolutely not a f'ing Republican.

What, this isn't enough? This budget could buy a lot of inspiration.

on CERTAIN PIECES while decreasing others. My hunch is that he will increase intelligence and foot soldiers rather than our weapons of war. OVer time that results in a net reduction.

http://obama.senate.gov/

Obama Demands Answers on Blackwater Immunity Deal

WASHINGTON, DC – Today, United States Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) sent the following letter to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice demanding answers on reports that State Department officials offered Blackwater guards immunity from prosecution, which may hinder a criminal investigation into the September shooting that killed at least 17 Iraqis.

..............

We will need to keep our military strong - Have you checked China's military lately???

Try this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ru-xQac_sWw&feature=related

You don't even need to know Chinese - just your eyes will do just fine!!!!!!!!

:patriot:

I don't want more wars and he's prepared to take us there.

Just a little heads up.

People actually think that we will be out of Iraq because of the person they vote for. HUGE misconception. You will see.

The bullshit will be exposed. If he loses, his cult will only grow.

Lets say that through the intelligence channels you find out there is a terrorist cell in Thailand that is planning a dirty bomb shipment to the US. The president alerts the president/PM of Thailand; gets no where with them on getting the cell. The president is left with 2 options.

1. Hope the Thai PM does something (diplomacy)

2. Send a seal team in and take out the damn cell.


I have hunch that most of you here would take option #2. Which by the way is "preemptive" in nature for our safety.

to this country and it is real ANY president worth his/her salt has duty to do everything in its power to eliminate that threat. Now if the threat is coming out of England then you know that the british will work with us to solve the issue. But if the problem comes from a hard headed country; then we must take matters into our own hands.

Oh. Yeah, that's not what unilateral attack is.

<>
He wants to add 65,000 troops to the Army and recruit 27,000 more Marines. Why? To fight terrorism.
<>

so, who do you want?

and that they occupy Iraq. I think, however, that a president should never say that anything in their arsenal is off the table when dealing with a true threat. That would show potential weakness. But I said true threat, not Iran.