"There is no difference Between John Mccain and Barack Obama"

[XxNeXuSxX]

Nobody's talking about attacking Russian troops. As far as i know the only reason the U.S. is there is for humanitarian aid right now. I don't think we'd ever go to war with Russia or them with us.

That's not how Russia sees it (as Putin publicly stated), and it's not how we'd feel if troops were on the border of Mexico... for "humanitarian purposes".

The world around us has to be policed on some level.

No it doesn't. Who gives the US the right to be world police? Isn't that how how our nation was founded, not being oppressed? Peace and economic negotiations take care of themselves. We must protect our own national security by protecting our own borders.

N. Korea, etc. with nukes we have to get involved to some degree.

Ironic that you say this, seeing as peace, rather than threats, seemed to be the best answer for N.Korea disarming, something the US knows jack sh*t about.

That completely changes everything we can tell them to do, or not to do. And then theres Georgia who are an American supported Democracy being invaded. Who's President happems to be the head of the U.N. or something?

Then maybe Georgia should not instigate next time, it was none of our business to interfere. We are suppose to lead by example, not how the Communists ran themselves.

Thank Bush for bringing us into it. Mccain was his biggest supporter. Obama voted not to go in.

I thank all retarded Democrats and Republicans alike.

[XxNeXuSxX]

So you just posted 3 rather different theories and that leads you to believe there's a 99% chance he's dead.

Organ failure, typhoid, or murdered?

He has three reports of death, the chance of all of them being faked is minuscule, was more of my point.

[MaxFly]

I'm so glad Ron Paul has no chance to become president. His simple minded view of foreign policy would be an embarrassment.

[Smokee]

That's not how Russia sees it (as Putin publicly stated), and it's not how we'd feel if troops were on the border of Mexico... for "humanitarian purposes".


No it doesn't. Who gives the US the right to be world police? Isn't that how how our nation was founded, not being oppressed? Peace and economic negotiations take care of themselves. We must protect our own national security by protecting our own borders.


Ironic that you say this, seeing as peace, rather than threats, seemed to be the best answer for N.Korea disarming, something the US knows jack sh*t about.


Then maybe Georgia should not instigate next time, it was none of our business to interfere. We are suppose to lead by example, not how the Communists ran themselves.

I thank all retarded Democrats and Republicans alike.

Trust me Obama isn't going to war with Russia. Mccain? Who knows?

I just think its funny you are so adamant in making them the same when they obviously aren't. You don't want to hear theres a better candidate along the lines of what Ron Paul is talking about when comparing Mccain to Obama, you just want to believe they are completley equal and the same

pointless arguing when you have that type of agenda

[XxNeXuSxX]

I'm so glad Ron Paul has no chance to become president. His simple minded view of foreign policy would be an embarrassment.

Kind of like this post.

Ironically, he's the most educated on these issues.

[XxNeXuSxX]

Trust me Obama isn't going to war with Russia. Mccain? Who knows?

I just think its funny you are so adamant in making them the same when they obviously aren't. You don't want to hear theres a better candidate along the lines of what Ron Paul is talking about when comparing Mccain to Obama, you just want to believe they are completley equal and the same

pointless arguing when you have that type of agenda

Not at all, watch the clip you're missing the point. The point is their policies greatly mirror each other. They both agree at keeping a base "bigger than the vatican" in Iraq, which costs us money. They both agree at sending more and more troops to Afghanistan, which again, continues to drain the economy, and both are not willing to take war with Iran off the table for negotiations, which is pathetic for a country that has never even thought of attacking us.

Ever read the Monroe Doctrine? The point is other countries take this side, but ironically, the US politicians don't.

[MaxFly]

Kind of like this post.

Ironically, he's the most educated on these issues.

Well for starters, just the notion that McCain and Obama have the same views on foreign policy is laughable. McCain is someone who supported the war in Iraq. Obama is someone who was against it. McCain is someone who has fought the idea of withdrawing our troops from Iraq until recently. Obama has been talking about withdrawing out troops responsibly for about 2 years. McCain is in favor of using militray might to subdue Iran. Obama wants to pursue diplomacy in dealing with Iran. Obama is for talks with the leaders of unfriendly nations. McCain is for the silent treatment when dealing with the leaders of unfriendly nations.

If you reduce Obama and McCain's stances on the various foreign policy issues to "Obama and McCain want to preseve US interests in their foreign policy decisions" then you can say that they are the same. However, if your flush out their actual stances, their views are very different.

[sunsfan1357]

Just from Wiki for an idea.


Who's making tapes? Anyone.

Bhutto said he was killed by Omar Sheikh. Sheikh has been in prison since 2002 for the Daniel Pearl incident. Your first "record" of Osama's death just seems not believable at all. Especially since a colleague only suggested that Osama died of organ failure. Even the Aussie said there hasn't been enough to allow judgement one way or the other. The only thing that seems legit is the typhoid case.

[XxNeXuSxX]

Well for starters, just the notion that McCain and Obama have the same views on foreign policy is laughable.

For those who don't understand the issue, nervous laughter is a common response. You'll soon learn why.

McCain is someone who supported the war in Iraq. Obama is someone who was against it.

The war in Iraq? Obama wasn't in office (perhaps you are recalling the speech), and he has continuously voted for continuing the War. Maybe you're thinking of Ron Paul, the only Republican to vote against the war?

McCain is someone who has fought the idea of withdrawing our troops from Iraq until recently. Obama has been talking about withdrawing out troops responsibly for about 2 years

.
And yet you miss the parallel because most aren't educated on the issue(I don't blame you). Read the OP, Obama is not in favor for a complete withdrawal, and wants to keep bases upon bases in Iraq which keeps troops there and money wasted.

McCain is in favor of using militray might to subdue Iran. Obama wants to pursue diplomacy in dealing with Iran.

Obama was asked if he would take war off the table, he promptly responded, "no". Same as Mccain, he is open to attacking a country that never attacked us.

Obama is for talks with the leaders of unfriendly nations. McCain is for the silent treatment when dealing with the leaders of unfriendly nations.

While the talks should be consistent of economics, nothing more.

If you reduce Obama and McCain's stances on the various foreign policy issues to "Obama and McCain want to preseve US interests in their foreign policy decisions" then you can say that they are the same. However, if your flush out their actual stances, their views are very different.

And where are they "very" different? Where is the outrage of placing troops in random countries? Would you be okay with Russia sending troops on the Mexican border to "preserve interests"? Nothing has been shown other than, "Obama is willing to talk to countries", vague and mysterious statement at best. Where's a SET DOCTRINE?

[MaxFly]

The war in Iraq? Obama wasn't in office (perhaps you are recalling the speech), and he has continuously voted for continuing the War. Maybe you're thinking of Ron Paul, the only Republican to vote against the war?

Yes, I am thinking about his speech. The one where he firmly came out against the war. I believe he called it a "dumb war."

And yet you miss the parallel because most aren't educated on the issue(I don't blame you). Read the OP, Obama is not in favor for a complete withdrawal, and wants to keep bases upon bases in Iraq which keeps troops there and money wasted.

And this is why I call Paul's views on foreign policy simplistic. Unfortunately, we have oil interests in the middle east as well as national security interests. It would be foolish of us not to leave bases in such a volatile region, even with the majority of our fighting forces pulled out. Imagine what would happen if we pulled out of Iraq, uprooted out based and left that country to the Iraqis. The Bush administration created a mess that we will be in for the long haul. We can, however, pull out the majority of our troops as quickly as reasonably possible so that our forces aren't overextended. We're not dealing with idealism here... We're dealing with practicality... The ideal thing would be to pull everyone out and have nothing to do with the country from that point on. Unfortunately, it's highly impractical.

Obama was asked if he would take war off the table, he promptly responded, "no". Same as Mccain, he is open to attacking a country that never attacked us.

When dealing with a hostile nation, it's never a good idea to say you've taken anything off the table unless you're absolutely sure that measure will never be called for. Why? Because you end up making yourself into a liar and a fool. Geroge H. W. Bush knows something about that when dealing with something as minor as taxes.

And where are they "very" different? Where is the outrage of placing troops in random countries. Would you be okay with Russia sending troops on the Mexican border to "preserve interests"? Nothing has been shown other than, "Obama is willing to talk to countries".

You've basically taken very big differences between how Obama and McCain approach American Forign Policy and have said, 'well that difference doesn't matter... and that one doesn't matter... and that one doesn't matter... and neither does that one... so see, they're the same." If Ron Paul wants to take the US back to pre-WWII foreign policy, it's time he take a stroll into the 2000s with the rest of us and consider the new complexities the world has to offer.

[lefthook00]

Look, the difference between Obama and McCain isn't what they tell us, its what they will actually do when certain problems arise.

[wTFaMonkey]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ez5robAWmu4

[bada bing]

Keep your propaganda bull **** out of ISH imho.

meh...its probably better if you keep your stupidity and ignorance to yourself.

[Hawker]

How's the truth propaganda?

Ron Paul was the only real candidate that was going to bring change.

[Hawker]

Yes, I am thinking about his speech. The one where he firmly came out against the war. I believe he called it a "dumb war."



And this is why I call Paul's views on foreign policy simplistic. Unfortunately, we have oil interests in the middle east as well as national security interests. It would be foolish of us not to leave bases in such a volatile region, even with the majority of our fighting forces pulled out. Imagine what would happen if we pulled out of Iraq, uprooted out based and left that country to the Iraqis. The Bush administration created a mess that we will be in for the long haul. We can, however, pull out the majority of our troops as quickly as reasonably possible so that our forces aren't overextended. We're not dealing with idealism here... We're dealing with practicality... The ideal thing would be to pull everyone out and have nothing to do with the country from that point on. Unfortunately, it's highly impractical.



When dealing with a hostile nation, it's never a good idea to say you've taken anything off the table unless you're absolutely sure that measure will never be called for. Why? Because you end up making yourself into a liar and a fool. Geroge H. W. Bush knows something about that when dealing with something as minor as taxes.



You've basically taken very big differences between how Obama and McCain approach American Forign Policy and have said, 'well that difference doesn't matter... and that one doesn't matter... and that one doesn't matter... and neither does that one... so see, they're the same." If Ron Paul wants to take the US back to pre-WWII foreign policy, it's time he take a stroll into the 2000s with the rest of us and consider the new complexities the world has to offer.

How are they very big differences? They are slight differences that really dont matter.

How is Iran a hostile nation? Who have they attacked that makes them hostile?

The only difference in the world between now and then is nukes and more advanced technology.