User blog comment:Nathan8039/Election Day! - Your Voice/Your Vote./@comment-3969224-20121105045518/@comment-3247345-20121106053912

I really underestimated you Slappy. I had a nasty feeling this would degenerate into pointless insults and name calling. You surprised me in a good way.

I guess I should have been more clear about my opposition to Bush's Middle East policy. The Afghanistan war was absolutely necessary and Bush made the right decision there. People have a short memory when it comes to this kind of stuff and it's unfair to complain that Bush went into Afghanistan given what happened. Iraq is where my main issue with Bush is. Saddam and al qaeda were sworn enemies. Saddam was a secular who brutalized the likes of al qaeda. I think Saddam telling the FBI that bin Laden is a zealot is pretty pretty telling. al qaeda was the real enemy. Dealing with one terrorist supporting dictator is easier than dealing with every religous zealot in the country running around with his own AK-47 and RPG. That said, given Saddam's previous actions removing him was a worthy goal. I just don't think the threat he posed waranted spending all that blood and treasure to remove him. I think a better course of action would have been using the CIA to cause a military coup or inciting and uprising along the lines of what happened after the first Gulf War and supporting it with the no fly zones we already had over Iraq. Basically what I think we should have done is made sure there was a credible replacement regime before overthowing Saddam.

Strangely enough I actually agree with you on a lot of things you said.

Obama is too naive for my taste in foreign affairs. As we saw with Carter that tends to scare the crap out of our allies and embolden our enemies. You are correct about the nuke thing. My main problem with reduction in nukes is that all our agreements our with Russia while China gets to keep all its nukes. I'm also in agreement with you about the need for a strong military. The military needs to be strong. I just think we need to be careful about when we use it. I support Obama on (some) domestic policy issues, not him making us look weak.

I also agree that the economy is the main issue. While I doubt that the pipeline would create 12 million jobs I agree that Obama should have given it the green light because it would have created jobs even if I think the number is exaggerated. I think our main disagreement here is how to create those jobs aside from the pipeline, not the desirability of creating those jobs.

I guess I misunderstood what you were saying about the EPA. If what you're saying is true then accountablity needs to improved for sure. I'm not so sure about disbanding it but making it accountable to Congress would definitely be a good thing. The EPA is putting more restrictions than they should but I just don't think it's as much of a job killer as some suggest. My concern is about demand for what's being sold.

I'll take you for your word about solar and wind energy. I don't know much on the subject and I was never a fan of demanding a change in the way we power the world with so many out of work. As for nuclear energy I've never really understood why the left is so opposed to it.

The reason I wrote all this is because I found it amazing that we actually agree on a lot of things but support different canidates.

You said you voted for Obama in 2008. The funny thing is I supported McCain (I didn't vote for him because I was only 16). It's refreshing to find someone who doesn't blindly support one party or the other all the time even if you happen to disagree about the issues. You seem pretty intelgent as well. Your support for Romney seems to stem from well thought out beliefs about politics and economics rather than the "what have you done for me lately?" garbage that seems to drive elections in this country. It's nice to finally run into someone who has an understanding of the issues and doesn't vote based on what which canidate has better rhetoric.