Homemade Commercial

[lukem]

My dad just sent this to me and thought I'd post it.

YouTube - Dear Mr. Obama

[HK4U]

Good video. Thanks.

[tattedupboy]

Exactly what I was thinking.

[wuzfuz]

Exactly on target. As someone pointed out a couple of weeks ago, John McCain is the only candidate for the presidency that has actually fought and suffered for this country. Someone tried besmirching Senator McCain recently by saying he was not a hero. I am sorry, but in my book, he, like all combat veterans is a hero. Not only did he serve six years in the Hanoi Hilton. He had his fighter shot out from under him on the deck of his carrier. A Zuni missile fired from a nother plane and hit McCain's plane. He climbed out of the cockpit, walked along a fuel hose like a tightrope and from what I was told, started helping other naval personnel to safety. He is the kind of man I want for a CIC.

[tattedupboy]

Originally Posted by wuzfuz

Exactly on target. As someone pointed out a couple of weeks ago, John McCain is the only candidate for the presidency that has actually fought and suffered for this country. Someone tried besmirching Senator McCain recently by saying he was not a hero. I am sorry, but in my book, he, like all combat veterans is a hero. Not only did he serve six years in the Hanoi Hilton. He had his fighter shot out from under him on the deck of his carrier. A Zuni missile fired from a nother plane and hit McCain's plane. He climbed out of the cockpit, walked along a fuel hose like a tightrope and from what I was told, started helping other naval personnel to safety. He is the kind of man I want for a CIC.

Not only that, he had an opportunity to escape captivity early but refused for the good of his country. If that's not a hero, I don't know what is.

[Scarecrow]

well stated.. right to the point.

[jwtollett21]

I'm very thankful for John Mcains service to our country. He is a man of bravery and honor. He was a POW and a hero. But....................That doesn't automatically make him a good presidential candidate or the best one.

[toreskha]

First of all, I'll preface this by saying that I disagree strongly with people who claim that the war in Iraq was "immoral" or "illegal". War is amoral. Bringing morality into war is like bringing a sensitive nose into a slaughterhouse. Legality is somewhat suspect in this respect, too. History has shown us that nations go to war solely for self-interest - 95% of the time, to seize a resource or gain a better political foothold. It's quite possible that that's the only realistically valid reason to go to war, too - for a reason that will pay off concretely. Going to war for moral or emotional reasons is likely a ruinous path. This sounds bad, but it's just reality.

This guy is saying, "Look what Americans have sacrificed for Iraq. Iraqis are people just like you and I. How can you say this was for nothing?"

This doesn't really make a logical argument at all, but is a very emotional appeal. Iraq is not a colony or territory we annexed, so we have absolutely zero responsibility towards them.

Certainly many Americans have sacrificed a great deal - in their minds, for the United States and for Iraq. However, sacrifice in and of itself may create meaning for the person who gives, but not necessarily for everyone else. Obviously, Iraqis are people just like you and I - who isn't? Martians?

If we had gotten involved in Iraq and somehow turned it into a Grand Utopia where peace reigns for 10,000 years, the weather is always pleasant, everyone is happy and all evil is driven underground - it still wouldn't be a good reason for our involvement.

$1 spent reconstructing Iraq, going to Iraq, or having anything whatsoever to do with Iraq, is $1 too much. We are not indebted to Iraq for any reason and have no reason to try and improve them.

Just as Europe should, the Middle East should handle their own affairs. If that means a war, then let them fight it out. If it means a dictatorship, they'll have to deal with that. Life isn't fair.

[sailor]

toreskha - tunnel vision in the extreme. Just my 2 cents. The history, the lives lost even before we went into Iraq (remember the Kurd and Shiia being buchered and gased?), are all too complex to cover credibly in a blog statement. Remember, it is not a U.S. only endeaver, but a coalition, however limited, sanctioned by the United Nations (a disgusting orginization!). The passion on each side of this is insurmountable, and will not be cleared up until the historians in 20-40- or more years disect it. I personally feel it was morally correct to do, but tactically misshandled (that's called 20-20 hind sight!).
sailor

[toreskha]

Originally Posted by sailor

toreskha - tunnel vision in the extreme. Just my 2 cents. The history, the lives lost even before we went into Iraq (remember the Kurd and Shiia being buchered and gased?), are all too complex to cover credibly in a blog statement. Remember, it is not a U.S. only endeaver, but a coalition, however limited, sanctioned by the United Nations (a disgusting orginization!). The passion on each side of this is insurmountable, and will not be cleared up until the historians in 20-40- or more years disect it. I personally feel it was morally correct to do, but tactically misshandled (that's called 20-20 hind sight!).
sailor

The United States is a nation, not a charity organization and we exist for the defense and common welfare of citizens of the United States - and NOT anyone else. Screw the coalition, Iraq and the United Nations. It doesn't matter to me if it was a coalition of every single nation in the world except for Iraq. We need to take care of ourselves, and not them. We're still footing part of the bill for something that is really not our problem at all. I remember the atrocities committed by Saddam on his people. That was horrible. We are obligated to condemn his actions and possibly to refuse to trade if he has used brutal labor practices.

How Saddam treats his people does not affect our national security. If there is a US citizen there, we can rescue them - but Kurds and Iraqis are not US citizens, and they are not our concern. That's someone else's problem. Putting hundreds of thousands of US citizens in harm's way for some people who we don't have any responsibility for is not the best way to ensure the safety of our own citizens.

Saddam can abuse them all he wants, but it doesn't change our position of power in the world one iota. Applying military force in such a situation is unwise, because it causes us to take action in an area in which we do not have any responsibility from whence that action comes.

Consider that you own a large company. You run things pretty well - although there are some shortcomings, they aren't major. You are aware of a smaller company, although a leader in its particular niche, which is a terrible place to work, abuses some of its workforce, takes advantage of industry programs and has poor accounting practices. You're justified in expressing your concerns to management there, and probably in leaking information about them to the press or to the IRS. Taking these actions doesn't endanger your own company one bit. But, you want to do more - as in, purchase the other business outright and turn it around.

You go ahead and do this, but it turns out to be far more difficult than you had imagined. However, you are committed to the process. Many of the employees are appreciative on one hand, but on the other, feel that your form of leadership is foreign and strange, and the management is constantly rebelling. The business really has nothing to offer you - no product or market share you can take advantage of.

The project takes an extraordinary amount of the cash out of your own company, causes debt to accumulate, and occupies the time of some of your best managers. In weekly update emails, you explain to your own employees, who are taking pay cuts for this project, that you're doing this out of the goodness of your own heart, and they should feel morally obligated to help fellow human beings. Although they like helping people, they remain unconvinced, and feel that you're trampling on their more immediate concerns because of an idealistic vision that you have for some other, strange company that you picked up. Eventually your business winds up with a ridiculous amount of debt; the other company ends up doing fairly well in the long run, and just goes on about its business - but isn't especially grateful to you for anything.

Obviously, no company in its right mind pulls this kind of crap. Their mission is to make money, not to go around fixing other people's mistakes.