Jump to content

Cheney in 08?


Flying_Mollusk
 Share

Recommended Posts

The strongest Republican candidate would be Colin Powell. I know you all probably think I am insane, but the guy is renowned due to his former secretary of state status, work under multiple presidents, and his legacy as an American Soldier. He has stature, a strong will, and I think he would win any election in a landslide(no matter who the democrats throw out there). Also, due to his long military background, he would be the right man for the job and could probably bring our boys home from Iraq and Afghanistan sooner than expected. Hillary Clinton in a time of war? PLEASE, did you see the way Bill handled the Yugoslavia/Bosnia/Kosovo situation? I liked Bill(he might go down as one of the best presidents in history due to how the economy flourished under him), dont get me wrong, but any Clinton or liberal democrat is the wrong person to lead us in a time of conflict. So, I say it now: Colin Powell in '08.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The strongest Republican candidate would be Colin Powell. I know you all probably think I am insane, but the guy is renowned due to his former secretary of state status, work under multiple presidents, and his legacy as an American Soldier. He has stature, a strong will, and I think he would win any election in a landslide(no matter who the democrats throw out there). Also, due to his long military background, he would be the right man for the job and could probably bring our boys home from Iraq and Afghanistan sooner than expected. Hillary Clinton in a time of war? PLEASE, did you see the way Bill handled the Yugoslavia/Bosnia/Kosovo situation? I liked Bill(he might go down as one of the best presidents in history due to how the economy flourished under him), dont get me wrong, but any Clinton or liberal democrat is the wrong person to lead us in a time of conflict. So, I say it now: Colin Powell in '08.

900394[/snapback]

 

Id respectfully disagree on two counts.

 

First, I dont think Powell has much of a chance to get elected. He really alienated a lot of the neocons by wavering on Iraq. Some Republicans think he just wasnt strong enough on it. Also, his views on the other issues might not be too clear. I know he supports affirmitive action.

 

Second, a liberal democrat could easily lead this country in a time of war. Lets not forget that the most liberal democrat of all time was the greatest war time president off all time-FDR. I know you could say it was a different time, but the priorities of liberals are still the same. Liberals, even FDR have never been pro war. But that doesnt make us weak on defending the US as some would accuse us of. In reality, Powell probably didnt want anything to do with invading Iraq.

 

Furthermore, if youre going to fault democrats for things going badly during any conflict, you have to fault Bush for Iraq being a borderline disaster, whether or not you think it was necessary or not. How long ago was mission accomplished? Clearly the people of this country are very sick of this thing. Even conservatives from middle America thought it would be over a long time ago.

 

Suffice it to say, Republicans dont have to reap what they sow when it comes to military conflicts going badly. They enjoy a presumption of strong wartime leadership. Lets be honest here. If this were Bill Clinton and Iraq was they way it was, Republicans would be all over him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The strongest Republican candidate would be Colin Powell.? I know you all probably think I am insane, but the guy is renowned due to his former secretary of state status, work under multiple presidents, and his legacy as an American Soldier.? He has stature, a strong will, and I think he would win any election in a landslide(no matter who the democrats throw out there).? Also, due to his long military background, he would be the right man for the job and could probably bring our boys home from Iraq and Afghanistan sooner than expected.? Hillary Clinton in a time of war?? PLEASE, did you see the way Bill handled the Yugoslavia/Bosnia/Kosovo situation?? I liked Bill(he might go down as one of the best presidents in history due to how the economy flourished under him), dont get me wrong, but any Clinton or liberal democrat is the wrong person to lead us in a time of conflict.? So, I say it now: Colin Powell in '08.

900394[/snapback]

 

Id respectfully disagree on two counts.

 

First, I dont think Powell has much of a chance to get elected. He really alienated a lot of the neocons by wavering on Iraq. Some Republicans think he just wasnt strong enough on it. Also, his views on the other issues might not be too clear. I know he supports affirmitive action.

 

Second, a liberal democrat could easily lead this country in a time of war. Lets not forget that the most liberal democrat of all time was the greatest war time president off all time-FDR. I know you could say it was a different time, but the priorities of liberals are still the same. Liberals, even FDR have never been pro war. But that doesnt make us weak on defending the US as some would accuse us of. In reality, Powell probably didnt want anything to do with invading Iraq.

 

Furthermore, if youre going to fault democrats for things going badly during any conflict, you have to fault Bush for Iraq being a borderline disaster, whether or not you think it was necessary or not. How long ago was mission accomplished? Clearly the people of this country are very sick of this thing. Even conservatives from middle America thought it would be over a long time ago.

 

Suffice it to say, Republicans dont have to reap what they sow when it comes to military conflicts going badly. They enjoy a presumption of strong wartime leadership. Lets be honest here. If this were Bill Clinton and Iraq was they way it was, Republicans would be all over him.

900407[/snapback]

 

I am a conservative from Middle America, and I served a 1 year tour of duty in Iraq as an infantryman in the 101st Airborne. I was in country from day 1 of the war, and my batallion was the spearhead of the invasion(1-502nd infantry). There's a differnece in being anti-war and being totally clueless on how to lead a country in war. Kerry's policies would of cost many more soldiers their lives.

 

Cutting money that would take away the extra kevlar plates that go in flak vests(a flak vest without them cant stop a 7.62 round, which is standard with the Kolashnikof(SP) rifles that are as common in 3rd world countries as s*** paper is in the US. Other budget cuts limiting the amount of ammunition, vital equipment for Infantry men such as I was(NODS, infared lasers, tactical flashlights, pistol grips...all of these things are attatchable to the M-4 carbine AND M-249 S.A.W. and the supply of them would be shortened, making replacements due to damage almost impossible).

 

Our anti-tank company was using targeting equipment from the 1980s! We already had a shortage of laser-range finders(1 per platoon) and the supply of them was going to be cut short. Our anti-tank company was also anti-personel, with .50 calibre machine guns and MK 19-grenade machine guns, and the ammunition budget on them was cut down as well. So lets see...the man presidential candidate wanted to cut the budget, taking away ammunition, neccessities in night combat operations where the modern US infantry thrives, and the vital Keval plates to help protect from the larger 7.62 rounds used by the enemy.

 

The defense budget was already short, due to so much being invested in the Stryker program(biggest bulls*** experiment in US Army history), to the point where we had Humvees from the original model year that broke down on a consistent basis and didn't have the luxary of the new Paratrooper style combat helmet(light weight), armor plateing for said Humvees, and outdated nightvision goggles.

 

And with Kerry's plan ever further weakining the budget provided to the US infantryman fighting overseas, he would of been inviting massacre.

 

As for Roosevelt, he tried to stay out of war, tried to make peace with Japan, but due to the lend-lease agreement with the allied nations that made us less and less neutral, he couldn't avoid war.

 

If world war 2 had not happened, Roosevelt would of more than likely of went down as a forgettable president, because several of his programs(N.R.A. is the most recognizeable) failed to bolster our economy, and several of his "New Deal" programs were struck down when the supreme court ruled them unconstitutional.

 

World War II and the mass production of weapons, vehicles, and supplies vital to the American war effort, is what brought us out of the depression.

 

And your assessment of him being "the greatest wartime president in history" is probably off as well, I think that title belongs to Abraham Lincoln. Notice how he said the war was to "preserve the union" and not to "abolish slavery" until the last stages of the war?

 

Lincoln had more to deal with than F.D.R., yes global expansion by imperical war mongers was threatening democracy, but Lincoln had to deal with the seperation of the country he was chosen to lead. So I guess it depends on what view you take: from a world point of view, F.D.R. was probably the greatest wartime president, but as for us as Americans, it should be Lincoln.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When is a real conservative candidate going to emerge?

 

Buchanan 2008!!!

899753[/snapback]

I'd prefer an actualy conservative ala Goldwater. Isn't Buchanan one of those religious right let's pry into peoples personallives conservatives?

899928[/snapback]

 

 

nah. buchanan is actuallyvery close to goldwater in many issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The strongest Republican candidate would be Colin Powell.? I know you all probably think I am insane, but the guy is renowned due to his former secretary of state status, work under multiple presidents, and his legacy as an American Soldier.? He has stature, a strong will, and I think he would win any election in a landslide(no matter who the democrats throw out there).? Also, due to his long military background, he would be the right man for the job and could probably bring our boys home from Iraq and Afghanistan sooner than expected.? Hillary Clinton in a time of war?? PLEASE, did you see the way Bill handled the Yugoslavia/Bosnia/Kosovo situation?? I liked Bill(he might go down as one of the best presidents in history due to how the economy flourished under him), dont get me wrong, but any Clinton or liberal democrat is the wrong person to lead us in a time of conflict.? So, I say it now: Colin Powell in '08.

900394[/snapback]

 

Id respectfully disagree on two counts.

 

First, I dont think Powell has much of a chance to get elected. He really alienated a lot of the neocons by wavering on Iraq. Some Republicans think he just wasnt strong enough on it. Also, his views on the other issues might not be too clear. I know he supports affirmitive action.

 

Second, a liberal democrat could easily lead this country in a time of war. Lets not forget that the most liberal democrat of all time was the greatest war time president off all time-FDR. I know you could say it was a different time, but the priorities of liberals are still the same. Liberals, even FDR have never been pro war. But that doesnt make us weak on defending the US as some would accuse us of. In reality, Powell probably didnt want anything to do with invading Iraq.

 

Furthermore, if youre going to fault democrats for things going badly during any conflict, you have to fault Bush for Iraq being a borderline disaster, whether or not you think it was necessary or not. How long ago was mission accomplished? Clearly the people of this country are very sick of this thing. Even conservatives from middle America thought it would be over a long time ago.

 

Suffice it to say, Republicans dont have to reap what they sow when it comes to military conflicts going badly. They enjoy a presumption of strong wartime leadership. Lets be honest here. If this were Bill Clinton and Iraq was they way it was, Republicans would be all over him.

900407[/snapback]

 

 

You are right on Powell, no chance on getting the nod he is for affirmative action , is pro abortion more importanly he has no desire to run and has stated so several times emphatically. On FDR you are wrong compared to fellow politicians with in the democratic party in the context of the times he was not a liberal at all in fact most of the measures he took were to ensure we would not turn into a communist country, people can quibble about some of the entitlements he enacted but I doubt few Americans know how close we were into turning into a completely different country(Huey Long wealth distribution etc) Second FDR basically got the US into the second war , even before Pearl Habor the land lease act and other legislation broke the USA's neutrality and prepared us for war especially the business sanctions against Japan. FDR prepared the U.S for a war that was inevitable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The strongest Republican candidate would be Colin Powell. I know you all probably think I am insane, but the guy is renowned due to his former secretary of state status, work under multiple presidents, and his legacy as an American Soldier. He has stature, a strong will, and I think he would win any election in a landslide(no matter who the democrats throw out there). Also, due to his long military background, he would be the right man for the job and could probably bring our boys home from Iraq and Afghanistan sooner than expected. Hillary Clinton in a time of war? PLEASE, did you see the way Bill handled the Yugoslavia/Bosnia/Kosovo situation? I liked Bill(he might go down as one of the best presidents in history due to how the economy flourished under him), dont get me wrong, but any Clinton or liberal democrat is the wrong person to lead us in a time of conflict. So, I say it now: Colin Powell in '08.

900394[/snapback]

 

 

I am a moderate voter who voted for Clinton , and a history student at UF masters program based on the criteria historians use to rate Presidents Clinton is middle of the road at best , most great Presidents are rated great on foreign policy achievements. In addition Presidents really dont deserve credit for how well the economy does , Congress deserves more of the credit or blame, as they shape economic policy more than the President . Second , Cooledge the President before Hoover oversaw an a booming economy the "roaring twenties" but it was build upon corruption just like the economy of the 90's all the Enron and Worldcom scandals occured during the 90's when they cooked the books , and on unsustainable overvalued businesses and commodities the tech bubble that bursted in 99, 2000 is very similar to the junk stocks that brought down the market in 1929. Bottomline Clinton maybe popular with some but will never be viewed as a great President

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share



×
×
  • Create New...