For all you party people that might\’ve missed this very important political showdown between two very determined and fierce Presidential candidates, here are some short clips with my own analysis & commentary.
Finally a debate about the issues that matter, not some mud-slinging contest to see who\’s worst than who.
The last point Obama makes about McCain before the clip ends: PRICELESS.
[…] I have proposed a league of democracies, a group of people, a group of countries, that share common interests, common values, common ideals, and they also control a lot of the world\’s economic power. We could impose significant, meaningful, painful sanctions on the Iranians that I think could have a beneficial effect [..]
* First of all, what the INSERT ANY DEROGATORY TERM OF YOUR CHOICE HERE is McCain talking about? Isn\’t the United Nations a \”group of countries, that share common interests, common values, common ideals\” ???
* Second of all, \”they also control a lot of the world\’s economic power\”, is McCain referring indirectly to the so-called New World Order \’Illuminati Free-Masons\’ ???
* Third of all, how is \”significant, meaningful, painful sanctions\” in any way, shape or form beneficial??? Isn\’t that an oxymoron??? If I can use an analogy here: Isn\’t that why they stopped corporal punishment in North American schools??? Then, how does it make any sense whatsoever to punish an entire population of people, when they\’ve done absolutely nothing wrong but obey their leader in command??? Isn\’t that what Americans did with Bush and the \”War against Terrah\”??? This is what we refer to, in the debatesphere, as a \”political double edged sword\”.
* Sound judgement as always: […] ironically, the single thing that has strengthened Iran over the last several years has been the War in Iraq, […] and what we\’ve seen over the last several years is Iran\’s influence grow […] so obviously, our policy over the last eight years has not worked.
* A candidate that understands the power of diplomacy: […]we\’re also gonna to have to, I believe, engage in tough direct diplomacy with Iran and this a major a difference that I have with Sen. McCain. This notion that 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 at isolation have actually accelarated their efforts to get nuclear weapons. That will change when I\’m President of the United States.
Amen. Finally, someone that knows that the value and benefits of communication go a long way.
– Sen. McCain:
Basic points are…
* Sen. McCain vehemently supports the War in Iraq, even though it doesn\’t make any sense, neither logically nor financially nor diplomatically nor militarily for that matter, for the United States to continue doing so.
* Talks about military \’success\’ when the war is still not contained, not to mention still on-going after 5 years of so many lives lost from the American side but moreso, from the Iraqi side.
* Believes that by sending more U.S. troops, they will come home with victory and a \’fledgling\’ democracy in place, however neglects the fact that Iraq is a sovereign nation, so it cannot totally truly govern itself when a \’foreign force\’ (i.e. the U.S. troops) has a very large presence on its territory. Would the United States be \’the land of the free, home of the brave\’ if let\’s say it was the other way around, and Iraq had in place on American soil a very large military contingency? Logically, with only basic common sense, we can deduct that the answer is a definitive No.
– Sen. Obama:
* Opposes the War in Iraq and has done so from the beginning: […] not only did we not know how much it was gonna cost, what our exit strategy might be, how it would affect our relationships around the world, and whether our intelligence was sound. But also because we hadn\’t finished the job in Afghanistan, we hadn\’t caught Bin Laden, we hadn\’t put Al Qaida to rest, and as a consequence, I thought it was gonna be a distraction.
* Accepts the consequences of the failed War in Iraq: […] we\’ve spent over 600 Billion Dollars so far, soon to be a Trillion, we have lost over 4,000 lives, we have seen 30,000 wounded, and most importantly, from a strategic national security perspective, Al Qaida is resurging stronger now more than any time since 2001. We took our eye off the ball.
* Understands what the implications of using military force in any given situation consist of: […] we have to use our military wisely, and we did not use our military wisely in Iraq.
* My favorite part: […] John, you like to pretend like the war started in 2007, you talk about the surge, the war started in 2003. And, at the time, when the war started, you said it was gonna be quick and easy, you said we knew where the weapons of mass destruction were, you were wrong. You said that we were gonna be greeted as liberators, you were wrong. You said that there was no history of violence between shiites and sunnis, you were wrong. […]If the question is \”Who is best equiped as the next President to make good decisions about how we use our military, how we make sure we are prepared and ready for the next conflict? Than we can take a look at our judgment\”.
There are more clips of the debate that can be found on Youtube and elsewhere on the web, but for the sake of keeping it simple, I decided to focus on only the above three. I strongly urge everyone from all over the world to keep a close eye on this very intense and history-making Race to the White House. The balance of the entire global system, in all aspects, will be determined by this election, so I cannot stress how important this is for all of us.
For the full coverage of the debate, go to: ://elections.nytimes.com/2008/president/debates/first-presidential-debate.html
©2008 Naibara Publishing Co. All Rights Reserved. No parts of OR the entirety of this compostion may be reproduced elsewhere without the proper consent and authorization from its author. Thank you for your cooperation.Connect with me on these sites: