Buoy Don’t Float

Here’s an old draft that’s been somewhat complete for ages (although now updated). But what better lull in blogging than now to publish?!

With the VP debate and now the second Presidential debate over, one thing has really bothered me.  I’m not usually one to get riled up over political banter, but this point really hit home when I think about war and Vietnam. Let me precede by saying that the war in vietnam has little to do with my rant, however, it is a good case in point that I know better than other wars.

McCain wants to bring our troops home with “Victory and Honor”.

He used a story about some-small-town-woman-in-some-swing-state who’s son died in the war. She had told McCain that he best make sure that he makes sure the war in Iraq ends with victory and honor so that her son’s death was not for nothing.

In addition, I’m sure you’ve heard Palin’s sound bite about Obama’s timeline for withdrawal being a “white flag of surrender.”

Correct me if I’m wrong, but since when were wars fought for the sake of being won? I don’t really know but I’m guessing some time before democracy.  Stop trying to appeal to American pride. Wars are supposed to be fought with objectives in mind. I’d hate to see American blood–that is a precious fundamental to our economy in form of alive workers, I might add and McCain would agree–spilt for prides sake. I haven’t mentioned Vietnam yet, but the U.S. withdrawal in Vietnam happened so quick and unexpectedly. It’s almost unfair to compare the two since the war in Vietnam never reached its objective, but at least the U.S. knew when to GTFO.  At least they stomached their pride, leaving behind thousands of South Vietnamese.

Obama, on the other hand, counters with his own some-small-town-woman-in-some-swing-state who’s son died in the war.  She had told Obama that he best make sure that the war in Iraq comes to an end so that other mothers don’t have to suffer the loss of a son. This makes sense to me.

My argument seems pretty one-sided thus far and I don’t want to be a naivete. I think Obama would make an awesome leader in an ideal world, inspiring hope and making real change.  However, it’s hard to neglect that his efforts would take a considerable amount of effort and cooperation from the international community which might not be so ready and willing as Obama is.  In fact, Ahdmenijad is probably much more like McCain or Bush and a diplomatic Obama might not fulfill some promises as advertised if Ahdmenijad keeps saying that Obama doesn’t seem to understand the issues at hand.

[edit] Alas! I’m ecstatic that Obama has the tenacity to shutdown Guantanamo. I keep hearing that America shouldn’t play by the rules if the enemies don’t, but I think it important to eliminate hypocrisy, especially if we are to continue barging into other countries waving banners of freedom and democracy.