Are we to believe that Obama who errantly insults a reporter with the demeaning term "sweetie" can somehow muster a diplomatic panacea leading to world peace? Will Obama step into Nigeria, wave his hand and instantly turn chaos into peaceful co-existence?

There's nothing wrong with criticism, and most Obama supporters are not opposed to it, nor do they regard him as a savior. All this savior talk comes directly from McCain and Clinton supporters. Making shit up as usual--that's what we take offense to. Inane claims that he's going to "waive his hands" and solve the problems. He never said or proposed anything like that, he supports diplomacy first, not willful inaction. To me that makes perfect sense: talk first, shoot second.

Also, why is military experience so important? Lincoln, FDR, they didn't have military experience, and Grant is often regarded as a shit president.

They felt he could be coerced into concessions and they were wrong. Kennedy was a brave man and knew where and how to draw the line. Obama has never seen or experienced one whit of military training.

You do not need military experience to be brave. Clinton doesn't have it.

I am asking, plain and simple, how Obama, who is untried in international relations, thinks he's going to accomplish diplomacy? He has stated that he feels that increased foreign aid would help. Does he plan to buy off these people?

McCain can't seem to get Sunni Shi'ia right? Does that not bother you?

Obama plans on talking to them. Answer me this, how does talking first make things worse? You can always follow up with military action (which Obama has said he would do), but why not try diplomacy and see what happens. Are we not suffering the effects of a military-first philosophy right now?