Obama's Visit To The "War Zone"

[Brett327]

Some of you really deserve the political system and government we've come to have in this country - you really do. Fucking lemmings make me want to wretch. You're no better than the idiots we see interviewed on TV who don't know who the current VP is, etc. You know who you are.

Brett

 

[Mumbles]

I happened to catch a headline from CNN yesterday morning ... continuing its coverage of Obama's trip overseas, CNN actually labeled its coverage "Global Rock Star." Underneath all of the footage of Obama shooting hoops and standing in front of Berlin's Victory Column and meeting with President Sarkozy, there it was: "Global Rock Star." I guess I shouldn't expect anything less from CNN though. But could it get any more obvious folks? This truly is the American Idol election. People want a rock star. They want a new super star who they can fawn over, who they can idolize. And not only is Obama a "rock star," to CNN he is a "global" rock star. People around the world are falling into this Idol worship trap.

 

[m0tbaillie]

Just out of curiosity, who are we at war with? I know we are at "war" (smirk) but I don't recall us EVER defining who the enemy is. Oh wait... "terror".

 

[m0tbaillie]

People want a rock star.

I don't mean to get all *OBAMARAMA* on you, but, I think that people want a President and a government that they can actually trust and *believe in* for a change. Are people "fawning" over him, or are they just happy to finally have a candidate for POTUS that is, at least ostensibly, a completely 180 from the last decade.

The guy's saying good things, and he is legitimately giving people - be it at home or around the world - hope. It's a far cry and a very large deviation from the past 8 years of "with us or against us" black-and-white mentality that we've come to expect and expos.

 

[BACONATOR]

Like him or not, I think those of you who don't get it yet may want to start "preparing" yourselves for the fact that Obama is likely our next CiC. Mumbles is spot on. The media has basically made it their mission TO get him elected. It is no longer about the campaign. They've made Obama into some sort of political deity who will redeem America and take us out of the slump...

I'm sure America will have ALL its problems solved on November 5th....

 

[Uncle Fester]

As opposed to the 72-year old cranky/senile cancer patient? I respect McCain's prior service, but his career was not exactly a beacon of leadership and responsibility. Many of his contemporaries - some of them decorated combat vets during Vietnam - have blasted him publically. He crashed *five* planes and 5th of the bottom of his class of almost 900.

Really? During his time in Hanoi, the reason that he was getting the living crap beaten out of him on a daily basis was to force him to accept an early release. In other words, he could have stopped it all with just a word and gone home. His SRO even told him he could do so - that his injuries from ejection were severe enough that he would authorize McCain to accept early release. But he didn't. He refused because it was what the North Vietnamese wanted; to "show the world" that in the decadent Yankee system, the priveleged son of the Admiral gets favors that the working man's sons don't.

There is so much nonsense during campaigns about what a candidate is "really like" and what some crap about lapel pins and the like says about "character". For once we've got someone standing for office who's proven themselves in something more than law or inside the Beltway.

And I'm not sure which contemporaries you are referring to - I'm sure he's got enemies, it's hard to be a politican and not have them - but the people who witnessed his conduct in Hanoi, including Col Bud Day, who received the MoH, have praised him repeatedly. Many are working for his campaign.

As for that "fifth from the bottom" thing...you're judging a candidate for president based on how he did at the Boat School?

Five planes? Perhaps. But that was also during a time when the mishap rate in Naval aviation was much, much higher than it was now. The fact that two of the planes he lost were in combat (one on the deck of Forrestal - parked, chocked and chained - the other over N. Vietnam) and a third while in the VTs, means it's completely irrelevant.

If you disagree with his policies or his politics or his stance on abortion or the war or whatever, fine. But don't be one of these guys like Gen Clark who scoff at the exploits of others when neither you nor I have ever, ever been tested the same way.

 

[MIDNJAC]

I would be in favor of making some military service, O or E, a requirement to be Commander in Chief.

It just makes sense to me that if someone is going to be in charge of the world's most powerful military, they should at least know what it's like to be a part of that military. Just my .02

I would remind you that a significant portion of junior commissioned officers had no previous military experience before leading Sailors/Marines/Airmen/Soldiers into harms way (or just in general). Of course there is a difference here of many orders of magnitude, but they are leaders of the military all the same. While I personally appreciate someone sitting in office who has served, this is not to say that there aren't perhaps other qualified candidates out there. Not to mention that a new President, no matter how inexperienced he may be, still has a staff of very experienced general officers at his disposal to defer to.

 

[m0tbaillie]

I'm sure America will have ALL its problems solved on November 5th....

I don't think anybody is saying that our problems are going to magically find themselves rectified the moment he's elected...it's going to take a presidential term or two (or three).

And I'm not sure which contemporaries you are referring to - I'm sure he's got enemies, it's hard to be a politican and not have them - but the people who witnessed his conduct in Hanoi, including Col Bud Day, who received the MoH, have praised him repeatedly. Many are working for his campaign.

Five planes? Perhaps. But that was also during a time when the mishap rate in Naval aviation was much, much higher than it was now. The fact that two of the planes he lost were in combat (one on the deck of Forrestal - parked, chocked and chained - the other over N. Vietnam) and a third while in the VTs, means it's completely irrelevant.

I guess 3 out of 5's not bad...

"McCain III lost jet number one in 1958 when he plunged into Corpus Christi Bay while practicing landings. He was knocked unconscious by the impact coming to as the plane settled to the bottom.

McCain's second crash occurred while he was deployed in the Mediterranean. "Flying too low over the Iberian Peninsula," Timberg wrote, "he took out some power lines [reminiscent of the 1998 incident in which a Marine Corps jet sliced through the cables of a gondola at an Italian ski resort, killing 20] which led to a spate of newspaper stories in which he was predictably identified as the son of an admiral."

McCain's third crash three occurred when he was returning from flying a Navy trainer solo to Philadelphia for an Army-Navy football game.

Timberg reported that McCain radioed, "I've got a flameout" and went through standard relight procedures three times before ejecting at one thousand feet. McCain landed on a deserted beach moments before the plane slammed into a clump of trees."

The other two were the Forrestal incident and his shoot-down over Vietnam, respectively.

I will answer the question about his contemporaries when I get back from class, I'll dig up the couple of article that I'm referring to specifically (because I don't remember the names off the top of my head).

 

[Zissou]

As opposed to the 72-year old cranky/senile cancer patient? I respect McCain's prior service, but his career was not exactly a beacon of leadership and responsibility. Many of his contemporaries - some of them decorated combat vets during Vietnam - have blasted him publically. He crashed *five* planes and 5th of the bottom of his class of almost 900.

I'd rather take the civilian who spent several years after getting his JD from Harvard Law to do pro-bono civil rights work for poor people. Just because he was never in the military doesn't mean he's going to be any more out of touch than the current Administration who "had other priorities in the '60s than military service." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Cheney#Vietnam_War_draft)

I should say that military experience isn't so important to me as deference to military professional expertise. Sen. Obama, IIRC, didnt even claim to have sought opinions from Gen. Petraeus's peers or retired General Officers.

His decision to oppose the surge appeared to me to be based on no logic, just a desire to be at conflict with the POTUS.

Thats what concerns me.

He said something to the effect that he still disagrees with the troop surge's affect on the ground situation in Iraq. I just cant understand that, not at all. Alot of things fell in place this past year but I cant imagine the added combat force did not profoundly affect the situation.

He does not demonstrate any confidence in Gen. Patraeus. Say what you will about the General but this time in 06 we were losing young American's every single day. Whatever he is doing, its changed Iraq's future for the better.

 

[chupacabra]

Just as a rule of thumb, any story you get in a forwarded email should be considered false until proven true.

 

[Uncle Fester]

No matter who wins this thing, I think the best that will come from this election is that perhaps we'll get away from the "You're stupid!" "No, you're stupid!" school that has defined Washington policial debate since Clinton's first term.

Just in terms of the general public, no one really seems that deliriously excited or venomously opposed to either candidate. Not that I think civil discourse, informed debate, or just general intelligence will magically go up, but maybe things can get beyond simply scoring points off the other side.

 

[Scoob]

I would remind you that a significant portion of junior commissioned officers had no previous military experience before leading Sailors/Marines/Airmen/Soldiers into harms way (or just in general). Of course there is a difference here of many orders of magnitude, but they are leaders of the military all the same. While I personally appreciate someone sitting in office who has served, this is not to say that there aren't perhaps other qualified candidates out there. Not to mention that a new President, no matter how inexperienced he may be, still has a staff of very experienced general officers at his disposal to defer to.

You have got to be kidding me, Ensign.

Go find the nearest Chief and ask him to slap you.

 

[MIDNJAC]

You have got to be kidding me, Ensign.

Go find the nearest Chief and ask him to slap you.

If you draw the comparison out further, we Ensigns and 2Lt's (yes, it has been beaten into our heads for plenty long how dumb/retarded/inexperienced/etc we are) have Chiefs, LPO's, GySgt's and Sgt/SSgt's etc to defer to for wisdom. Obviously for those of us in flight school this isn't very applicable, but for some of my SWO buddies it most definitely is, and certainly for all of the Lt's who have reported to their first commands. Maybe I should have made this distinction in my previous...

 

[Picaroon]

Just as a rule of thumb, any story you get in a forwarded email should be considered false until proven true.

I'd say that pretty much anything you read on the internet from anywhere but reputable sources should also be considered false until proven otherwise.

 

[abracadabra11]

Anyone who believes the kind of nonsense that is spouted about either candidate is so blinded by their own ideology that they lack the capacity to think clearly and effectively about the political process. Both candidates are outstanding Americans. Don't waste your time on the sound bites created by either party (or some nobody on the Internet whose character and intentions are unknown) - they appeal to your emotions and not your rationale.