The issue with McCain and the war

[Tripw0l]

Up until recently, I felt like McCain was in no hurry to get out of Iraq but had the knowledge and the attitude to get the job done and bring the boys home shortly after he was elected. Here's a video regarding information that he has on Iraq versus what he actually says about Iraq. He's either pandering like mad or he's gone completely off his rocker, part of me thinks the latter.

YouTube - TPMtv: John McCain vs. The Video Tape

You decide.

[Chuck 98 RT/10]

I thought this was gonna be a serious poll until I read the cute wording of the options.

Pass.

[HullBreach]

War without end! Blood for the blood god! Yarrrrrgh!

Just kidding. I just don't trust him on anything other than the war, and I honestly think he'll tank the economy.

The war isn't that central an issue anymore anyways, as things are coming along pretty damn smoothly there at this point. Weve reduced AQI to using women with Down Syndrome as thier suicide bombers, and the Arab world is starting to finally realize what a bunch of dirt-bags that AQ really are.

Basically, at this point and time, the politicians really just need to shut the fuck up and keep out of the generals way, as they are getting the job done.

The economy on the other hand is another story. This stupid stimulus plan (wealth redistribution by another name) is a band-aid on a bullet-hole. We really need a buisiness savvy individual in office.

[Sumthin Nuu]

I highly doubt McCain has any intentions of bringing very many troops stateside or even reducing troop levels in Iraq by a substantial percentage within his time in office, despite whatever delusions to the contrary American voters have convinced themselves of.

The first reason would be that instability in Pakistan and Afghanistan has the potential to get much worse as we go thru 2008 and then 2009, and he would want the ability to move troops to those areas quickly when needed.

The second reason would be that it just doesn't square with his stated beliefs and intentions regarding Iraq. McCain, like Bush, resolutely believes that a continued US presence will eventually bring a stable democratic form of government there.

[SilentBob86]

I highly doubt McCain has any intentions of bringing very many troops stateside or even reducing troop levels in Iraq by a substantial percentage within his time in office, despite whatever delusions to the contrary American voters have convinced themselves of.

The first reason would be that instability in Pakistan and Afghanistan has the potential to get much worse as we go thru 2008 and then 2009, and he would want the ability to move troops to those areas quickly when needed.

The second reason would be that it just doesn't square with his stated beliefs and intentions regarding Iraq. McCain, like Bush, resolutely believes that a continued US presence will eventually bring a stable democratic form of government there.
+1

Which is why i wont vote for him....i think he has no real plans of pulling anyone out of the middle east....not to mention he'd prolly spend the same on the military budget as bush, if not more. Which is exactly what we DONT need...

[PPGMD]

Which is why i wont vote for him....i think he has no real plans of pulling anyone out of the middle east....not to mention he'd prolly spend the same on the military budget as bush, if not more. Which is exactly what we DONT need...

And pulling out will accomplish what exactly? We will get the same thing that happened after Somalia they were become bolder, because they know once they kill a few of our soldiers we will pull out.

[DSG]

And pulling out will accomplish what exactly? We will get the same thing that happened after Somalia they were become bolder, because they know once they kill a few of our soldiers we will pull out.

+1 and Bin Laden has even said this about us himslef.

[Sumthin Nuu]

And pulling out will accomplish what exactly? We will get the same thing that happened after Somalia they were become bolder, because they know once they kill a few of our soldiers we will pull out.

And what happens if we stay, exactly?

It's strangely amusing to see the same people who have such a crystal clear idea of what will happen if the US leaves Iraq, then strugggle with the questions posed by what happens if the US stays for an indefinite time. Here are just a few:

What if we have another 18 or 19 Saudi terrorists execute a 9/11 type attack or one even worse on US soil within the next 2-3 years? Can we expect our military to put Iraq and Afghanistan on hold long enough to address the threat coming from within Saudi Arabia?

How long can the US military be expected to be able to maintain a war-time tempo and the resulting strains on personnel, equipment and infrastructure before fatigue at every level starts to set in? Anyone remember the Soviets in Afghanistan?

What would be the effect on the world economy, the US economy and by extension, the military if gas prices top $200/barrel? Think our foreign aid requests by our allies might go up just a touch?

These questions aren't just to predict gloom and doom or play devil's advocate but to at least acknowledge that, like it or not, we may be forced out of Iraq, and not by choice, but by circumstance.

The next president will inherit a whole lot of nation building left to do in Iraq, an Al Qaeda occupied Afghanistan, an unstable Pakistan, a growing military force in China and we havent even gotten to domestic concerns. I sure hope our next President has the shoes and brains for it, I just dont have confidence that McCain does.

[Kryptix]

And what happens if we stay, exactly?

It's strangely amusing to see the same people who have such a crystal clear idea of what will happen if the US leaves Iraq, then strugggle with the questions posed by what happens if the US stays for an indefinite time. Here are just a few:

What if we have another 18 or 19 Saudi terrorists execute a 9/11 type attack or one even worse on US soil within the next 2-3 years? Can we expect our military to put Iraq and Afghanistan on hold long enough to address the threat coming from within Saudi Arabia?

How long can the US military be expected to be able to maintain a war-time tempo and the resulting strains on personnel, equipment and infrastructure before fatigue at every level starts to set in? Anyone remember the Soviets in Afghanistan?

What would be the effect on the world economy, the US economy and by extension, the military if gas prices top $200/barrel? Think our foreign aid requests by our allies might go up just a touch?

These questions aren't just to predict gloom and doom or play devil's advocate but to at least ackknowledge that, like it or not, we may be forced out of Iraq, and not by choice but by circumstance.

The next president will inherit a whole lot of nation building left to do in Iraq, an Al Qaeda occupied Afghanistan, an unstable Pakistan, a growing military force in China and we havent gotten to domestic concerns. I sure hope our next President has the shoes and brains for it, I just dont have confidence that McCain does.

Add to that that if any of the above mentioned happens and if McCain is President he would bankrupt this country and ruin everything before he would pull out of Iraq. He said it himself. Not leaving no matter what.

[Kryptix]

And pulling out will accomplish what exactly? We will get the same thing that happened after Somalia they were become bolder, because they know once they kill a few of our soldiers we will pull out.

I think we have already proven that statement wrong. 5 years? how many wounded and dead? What's the point? We could be there for 10 or 20 years and you'd probably say the same thing.

[whitebread]

You decide.
hahaha. you put up an obviously tendentious video, edited to give the impression that mccain is really clueless on the war. then you say "you decide," like its an objective presentation from which to form an opinion.

mccain does understand the conflict. i'm not saying he is never wrong in any statement he makes about the conflict, but that in a broad sense, he has it right. the strategy is succeeding. but what many people, especially on the left, still shockingly don't understand is that the change in strategy wasn't really "the surge." the surge was what was needed to implement the change in strategy, which was the shift to counterinsurgency. that is what mccain and others were calling for before bush finally gave in and instituted it.

the issue of anbar having nothing to do with the surge is a distortion of the situation. yes, some success was beginning there before the surge, but that is because the tactics on which the surge was based were being used there. a critical part of the strategy is working closely with the locals to develop their trust and confidence. they don't like al qaeda, and turned against them out of their own self-interest. however, they have to trust that siding with us will lead to victory, otherwise they are better off tolerating al qaeda. well, the surge caused the anbar awakening to proceed much more rapidly because additional troops were deployed that demonstrated we could be counted on as an ally. the surge also allowed the strategy to be extended to other areas of the country, most importantly baghdad.

as far as political reconciliation, mccain is right again. if you listen to the experts they will tell you, security is a prerequisite for political progress. however, its circular. in the long run, security can't be maintained without political reconciliation.

The economy on the other hand is another story. This stupid stimulus plan (wealth redistribution by another name) is a band-aid on a bullet-hole. We really need a buisiness savvy individual in office.
the business savvy candidate promised to bring back manufacturing jobs to michigan, as if it would be desirable to return the economy to the 1970s. business isn't economics. in fact, business experience might be harmful in this area. it might lead one to think they can micromanage the economy, which is not desirable. the best thing the president can do is set the conditions for long-term growth and let the economy be. mccain doesn't really seem to know economics, but he pretty much wants to do just that. i'll attribute it to good advisers. he wants to lower corporate taxes, make the bush tax cuts permanent, and expand free trade. all of those are ingredients in economic prosperity.

[Elohim]

The neo-con goal is to pretty much transform Iraq into a Germany or S. Korea. Cut the violence down to a minimum but keep a large military presence there forever.

[Tripw0l]

hahaha. you put up an obviously tendentious video, edited to give the impression that mccain is really clueless on the war. then you say "you decide," like its an objective presentation from which to form an opinion.

You're right, you caught me. I should leave the faux neutrality to Rupert Murdoch :)

[Josh]

soooo same play for the next four years - everyone is just switching seats. gotcha

[Sumthin Nuu]

soooo same play for the next four years - everyone is just switching seats. gotcha

Pretty much.

If a Republican like McCain gets the big chair, we'll get the amnesty legislation that he and Bush claim isn't amnesty, we'll stay in Iraq, and the Republicans can generally finish topping off the nest they've been shitting in, until it falls out of the tree under its own weight.

If a Democrat like Hillary gets it, we'll get the amnesty legislation that McCain co-authored, we'll stay in Iraq, and the Democrats will likely spend money with a fervor that exceeds the Republicans under Bush, and thats saying something.

[Iroc Joe]

Pretty much.

If a Republican like McCain gets the big chair, we'll get the amnesty legislation that he and Bush claim isn't amnesty, we'll stay in Iraq, and the Republicans can generally finish topping off the nest they've been shitting in, until it falls out of the tree under its own weight.

If a Democrat like Hillary gets it, we'll get the amnesty legislation that McCain co-authored, we'll stay in Iraq, and the Democrats will likely spend money with a fervor that exceeds the Republicans under Bush, and thats saying something.

Pretty awesome options, no? :lol:

[BAMF]

Lets just hope some economic advisors with the stones to smack McCain across his face and tell him, "Its time to go!" find their way into his cabinet, eh?

I trust the guy with my rights and freedoms. Since I don't trust Hillary (or Barack much) with them, he has to win by default. All the other things, just pray for good advisors if he ends up sucking at it.


By the way. I have a strong feeling this 'stay the course' crap is simply to keep the Republican party on his side. I don't think he'll be as devoted as he is leading people onto believe. When you're not a complete toolbox that automatically buys into all the crap your political party says you're suppossed to, its really difficult to keep their support. And you know what? That lie is fine by me.

Oh, and I'm with Chuck. I'm not voting on this ridiculous poll.

[Tripw0l]

Lets just hope some economic advisors with the stones to smack McCain across his face and tell him, "Its time to go!" find their way into his cabinet, eh?What exactly are you trying to say? You're saying that McCain has gone rogue on his fiscal policy instead of listening to good advice? Explain please.

I trust the guy with my rights and freedoms. Since I don't trust Hillary (or Barack much) with them, he has to win by default. All the other things, just pray for good advisors if he ends up sucking at it. I trust McCain pretty well too but then again, I don't really think that any future president could completely take advantage and abuse their power the way that Bush has. You think you're risking your freedoms by having a Democrat in power? :squint: Explain please. I haven't heard of many Democrats, especially Obama or Hillary willing to shred the Constitution which is the basis for your rights in this country.

By the way. I have a strong feeling this 'stay the course' crap is simply to keep the Republican party on his side. I don't think he'll be as devoted as he is leading people onto believe. When you're not a complete toolbox that automatically buys into all the crap your political party says you're suppossed to, its really difficult to keep their support. And you know what? That lie is fine by me. I have that same feeling but then again, I also get the feeling that his feet will be held to the fire by his faithful Neocon supporters who DEMAND loyalty and he'll cave in for a prolonged presence and will do more to develop a nation building foreign policy.

Oh, and I'm with Chuck. I'm not voting on this ridiculous poll. So, you don't think he'll be able to stop the war or don't want him to? I believe that might indicate your support for the third option :) If you think he's capable of "victory" then choose the first option, even though "victory" is a broad/subjective term, it was used intentionally. If you're blessed with a sense of humor "god forbid" AND think he's actually not planning to ever stop the war and doesn't want to then choose the second option. If you WANT the latter then the third option is right up your alley :)

[BAMF]

What exactly are you trying to say? You're saying that McCain has gone rogue on his fiscal policy instead of listening to good advice? Explain please.


Just a worst case scenario for all of the haters who say, "OMG HE'LL BANKRUPT US AND CRASH THE ECONOMY!"



I trust McCain pretty well too but then again, I don't really think that any future president could completely take advantage and abuse their power the way that Bush has. You think you're risking your freedoms by having a Democrat in power? :squint: Explain please. I haven't heard of many Democrats, especially Obama or Hillary willing to shred the Constitution which is the basis for your rights in this country.


Democrats in general have a huge issue with the 2nd amendment and at times free speech. Hillary is a rank-n-file Democrat, and Obama I at least know is against gun ownership. Hillary has 0 economic sense, Obama just might though. But I Agree, neither will hurt us as badly as Bush has.



I have that same feeling but then again, I also get the feeling that his feet will be held to the fire by his faithful Neocon supporters who DEMAND loyalty and he'll cave in for a prolonged presence and will do more to develop a nation building foreign policy.


Hopefully he tells them all to screw off if he gets into office. Hopefully...



So, you don't think he'll be able to stop the war or don't want him to? I believe that might indicate your support for the third option :) If you think he's capable of "victory" then choose the first option, even though "victory" is a broad/subjective term, it was used intentionally. If you're blessed with a sense of humor "god forbid" AND think he's actually not planning to ever stop the war and doesn't want to then choose the second option. If you WANT the latter then the third option is right up your alley :)

He can do whatever he wants if he is the president.

[HullBreach]

You know, serisously, what the fuck is a NeoCon? I hear it used constantly, but I've yet to ever see a definition beyond "that republican I don't like"

[BAMF]

You know, serisously, what the fuck is a NeoCon? I hear it used constantly, but I've yet to ever see a definition beyond "that republican I don't like"

I use it to refer to the new breeb of conservatives that don't abide by the classic conservative ideals (which I Don't have TOO many problems with. Shame they lost their best aspects), but I doubt the college-aegd pot smoking conspiracy therorists who spam that word around these boards use it the same way.

[HullBreach]

I use it to refer to the new breeb of conservatives that don't abide by the classic conservative ideals (which I Don't have TOO many problems with. Shame they lost their best aspects), but I doubt the college-aegd pot smoking conspiracy therorists who spam that word around these boards use it the same way.

Ok, thanks for the clarifacation. I've been called a Neo-con on occaision because of my socially liberal stances being coupled with more traditional conservative fiscal and national security policies.

[PPGMD]

Neo-Con Noun - Literally means New Conservative.

Derogatory - Any conservative that disagrees with their position. (The most common use, used by both sides, but most often by liberals)

1970s: The original neocons were a band of liberal intellectuals who rebelled against the Democratic Party's leftward drift on defense issues in the 1970s. At first the neocons clustered around Sen. Henry "Scoop" Jackson, a Democrat, but then they aligned themselves with Ronald Reagan and the Republicans, who promised to confront Soviet expansionism. The neocons, in the famous formulation of one of their leaders, Irving Kristol, were "liberals mugged by reality."

Modern Definition: Basically it means that overall you align yourself with President Bush, in particular with his foreign and economic policy, but not necessarily his social policy, as the they are more socially liberal it what's allowed as long as tax payers don't have to pay for it.

[jabtay]

Ha i was beat to it.