If, like the peoples on the radio and this forum say, Obama is a statesmen and that they want a statesmen, why the hell would he run for president? Statesman is a diplomat. Obama would make a good UN diplomat with his strategery and complex analysis of the siteeashun, but I think the presidential office is meant more for a Commander and Chief, otherwise known as a military leader.

Stop trolling

This only becomes most important in either of two scenarios:

1. The country is under attack or otherwised threatened (WWII and the like)

2. The country makes war with other countries for reasons of wealth (imperialism, Military Industrial Complex led countries fall under the latter here)

I am open to the suggestion of more reasons, but these seem to be the two major reasons why the presidental office would be meant MORE for a COmmander in Chief.

Now if you wish to state that the military aspects of the job is more important b/c of the first reason (we are under attack or threatened) you will have to make a case that terrorism REALLY threatens this country in a serious enough way to warrant having a military leader rather than an economic, dimplomatic, legislation type leader.

You will also have to explain how the military can kill an idea (terrorism). If it can't (which it can't) that essentially means we should always elect military leaders over economic and diplomatic leaders, just to keep us small folk safe, right?

Obama should be swinging from a tree.

Well now this would never happen if we had some kind of mercenary fighting force to protect our interests abroad. Look at what happened during the Taft administration, US soldiers were sent to South America to protect the interests of the United Fruit Corporation. Had Blackwater been created at that time, perhaps we wouldn't have wasted federal funding on the United Fruit Corporation.

War? Only War? What about during the Civil Rights era when NG was called in to several places to quell rioting and domestic disputes? What of the case of natural disaster? SHould we have president who is open to discussion with Israel and Iran while the midwest is flooding?

Statesmen make the world happy and everyone cozy, but the president is truly a leader, not a statesman. The last true statesman I can think of was Carter. No one in America cares about peace in Zimbabwe, they want bread on their table and gasoline in their tanks.

You're right, we should invade the flood

Why do people act like he won't have any advisers at all, and since you seem so keen to point out that he wants to talk with everybody, doesn't it seem like he would be more inclined to listen to them?

Funny how people tend to forget this

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7444083.stm


"It may well turn out to be the largest war profiteering in history."

In the run-up to the invasion, one of the most senior officials in charge of procurement in the Pentagon objected to a contract potentially worth $7bn that was given to Halliburton, a Texan company which used to be run by Dick Cheney before he became vice-president.

Unusually only Halliburton got to bid - and won. "

Oh, we didn't fucking forget it. There's just not a lot we can do about it at this point.

Yes, we should. I believe that good foreign relations is much more important than having a strategic military mindset.