204)This page is a permanent archive of the comment below and its replies.
To view this comment in the context of the full discussion for the story, use this link.
Not a member? Sign-up today!
About Propeller | Frequently Asked Questions | Help
© 2003-2008 Propeller. All Rights Reserved. Terms of Use | Privacy Policy
"It would be a terrible mistake for my supporters to vote for Senator McCain over Senator Obama."
The fact is that there are very LITTLE differences in the positions of Clinton and Obama. And although he may be the YOUNGEST candidate in the field and may have the least POLITICAL experience he has as much (if not MORE) KNOWLEDGE of world politics then either of the other two. When you ADD that he has more KNOWLEDGE, then McCain on EVERY other issue (economy, global warming, alternative energy that faces this country and the world for the next 4, 8 or 100 years it the 'cake walk' that McCain said the Iraq war would initially be (and in this case it's correct).
Your comment is full of BS my friend. You can't just say that Obama has more knowledge than Mc*insert lame liberal joke* on EVERY issue. In some cases Obama does have more knowledge, but in others he doesn't.
Whether you like it or not, Iraq and other terrorist nations/group are going to be a concern of the world for a while, and Obama doesn't have the military backing to run a war. I know Obama runs on the premise that hes going to take us out of Iraq, but just like the democratic congress I severely doubt he can live up to that promise. Remember Nixon's promise to get out of Vietnam? I see Obama's promise going along the same lines. So I think we need someone who has a solid plan of action in Iraq and a little more experience.
>>So I think we need someone who has a solid plan of action in Iraq and a little more experience.
That DEFINITELY leaves out McCain, then. He has military experience, but absolutely NO plan for Iraq.
I don't think any "plan" would work in Iraq, especially at this point. The war killed thousands of civilians, destroyed Iraq's infrastructure. The Sunnis, Shiites, Iraq's military, and according to Bush even Al Qaeda, and our military are all fighting. They don't wear pink identification bands, our military men & women being in uniform are the only ones one can identify. As a result, at times, no-one knows which side is fighting the other.
The vast majority of civilians are unemployed, & many are killed daily by roadside bombs. This isn't a war any President will be able to put an end to in an effective way. With Saddam gone, there is a power vacuum. There is not a chance in hell that the Iraqis will permit our President to put someone of his/her choosing into Iraq's government to lead the Iraqi people. Hillary/Obama are right when they want to opt for a phased withdrawal.
>>I don't think any "plan" would work in Iraq, especially at this point
That's the whole point. There's Sunni killing Shi'ia, Shi'ia killing Sunni, Sunni killing Sunni in the form of Al Quaeda, & Shi'ia killing Shi'ia in the form of the Sadr Militia. Not to mention Turkey with the Kurds.
And all of them target our soldiers.
It's a power struggle that W started & that will not stop no matter how long we stay. The only way to quell the violence is to put so many soldiers on the ground that NONE of the militias or gov't troops would stand a chance. And that would probably lead to the complete, tyrannical-like occupation of the country & probably the unification of the factions to drive us out.
Any way you look at it, it's going to get bloody no matter what we do.
IOW, I agree w/your post.
PapaWolf: "that would probably lead to the complete, tyrannical-like occupation of the country & probably the unification of the factions to drive us out."
The Soviet Union tried that in Afghanistan. Anybody who doesn't remember it should check out how successful that was.
>>The Soviet Union tried that in Afghanistan. Anybody who doesn't remember it should check out how successful that was.
Yeah. Where's the Soviet Union now? And a major reason - Afghanistan.
Obama doesn't have the military backing to run a war.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And GWB DID? Of course not! BUT, if GWB had been SMART enough (and Obama IS) to USE the information of the people WHO KNOW what is going on, then we wouldn't be in this position in the first place.
And let's NOT forget that ANY military EXPERIENCE that John McCain HAD was based on a military, weapons AND enemy that does NOT exist and HAS not existed in 25 years (which is how long HE'S been OUT of the military).
******************
And as for "You can't just say that Obama has more knowledge (McCain)"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
YES, I can. Since Obama's course of study was International Politics and Government he has been studying (these very issues) MORE RECENTLY then John McCain AND has actually kept up on the important PLAYER which is why Obama has NEVER confused Sunni and Shi'a (and McCain did it 4 time in 5 days while IN the Middle East).
Of course GWB didn't have the background to lead this difficult of a war. And it shows by how poorly the war was handled and how poor public approval of Bush is. Nobody ever said Bush did a great job with the war.
Bush was SMART enough to use the information of the many leaders, countries and advisers who believed Iraq had WMD. People love to point to finger at Bush for "lying" that Iraq had WMDs, but nobody cares where he got his information from. Bush was just acting on the information he had at hand, its not his fault it may have been false info.
Vietnam and Iraq are very similar wars in the sense that the enemy were facing is using guerrilla tactics. So the experience of Vietnam is quite relevant to the war in Iraq. He also went to a military school where I'm sure he learned a thing or two about war. So you can't say all the experience hes had in the past is irrelevant now.
Bush was SMART enough to use the information of the many leaders, countries and advisers who believed Iraq had WMD. People love to point to finger at Bush for "lying" that Iraq had WMDs, but nobody cares where he got his information from. Bush was just acting on the information he had at hand, its not his fault it may have been false info.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
THAT is the problem that those of you (in the 29% that STILL approve of this idiot) seem to IGNORE.....Bush DIDN'T get information from from many leaders, countries and advisers who believed Iraq had WMD. He MANUFACTURED information that support that position and IGNORED the MOUNTAIN of evidence to the contrary.
And to say that the wars in Vietnam and Iraq are similar is like saying that Kansas and Oregon are similar. Vietnam was jungle where the enemy (mostly in a uniform) could be 5 feet away and you couldn't see him. Iraq is a desert and urban setting where ONLY Americans are in a uniform so NO ONE knows who's the enemy is.
And as for him going a military school......finishing 5th FROM THE BOTTOM does NOT give one a lot of confidence IMO!
Wheres your information that the Vietnamese were in uniforms? And in a dense jungle an enemy could be in a tree above your head and you would have no idea he was there. How many times did Americans mistake Vietnamese civilians for enemy combatants? If the Vietnamese wore uniforms all the time how did they make the mistake? Please tell me how.
So lets see the evidence that says that no other country or intelligence agency though Iraq had WMDs. The facts are that other countries agreed with Bush. If you think that other countries though Iraq had WMDs solely on Bush's opinion than thats just plain ignorance.
"Nobody ever said Bush did a great job with the war."
--So why did cons reward him with a second term? What had he accomplished that earned him four more years?
To be blunt, historical precedent got Bush elected. I remember that as somehow being a position of Bush or something, somehow. To give him credit I don't think he came up with it, I think that the MSM just kept saying it over and over again "America has never voted out a war-time President". I heard it ALOT... and I was only 15 in the last general election.
"Whether you like it or not, Iraq and other terrorist nations/group are going to be a concern of the world for a while,"
--Four more years (the exact length of a single Presidential term, coincidentally) and then we can pack up and leave, according to McCain. I just hope al qaeda doesn't get wind of the timetable McCain set on national TV yesterday. I wonder if they will... Because then they could just wait us out. That's the reason those on the right have insisted for the last 5 years that we shouldn't set a timetable for withdrawal--because we don't want to give our enemies our playbook. Wait...Does this mean McCain is for or against the terrorists now? It so hard to keep this all straight. The important thing is that flipflopping is no longer a legitimate excuse for rejecting a candidate (the way it was in '04). I guess Kerry just picked the wrong year. Right, cons? ;-(
Cloud, McCain doesn't have the military expertise to run a war either. Being related to an Admiral does not make you one. His military career failed miserably after he was released as a prisoner of war, another failure for getting shot down and then caught. He did serve his country honorably, but so did thousands of others and that doesn't qualify any of them to run a war, especially one he wants to blindly continue. Clinton is no better. Must I remind you that Abraham Lincoln had no experience in running a war when he took office either. There is no solid plan for Iraq but to get out. History tells us that much, and at least Obama has read his history.
cloud15,
I have news for you.
Every time you get some arse-clown politician, of which McCain is a leader, trying to run the military, Iraq happens.
What we need is a president who knows that war happens when diplomacy fails. McCain/Bush think diplomacy happens when war fails. Bass-ackwards, juvenile, expensive(!), deadly, and completely counter-productive to American goals.
McCain promises to be just another Bush. Obama promises to be another JFK. Who prevented war and who created unnecessary war?
"the 'cake walk' that McCain said the Iraq war would initially be"
Iraq has cost us less in 5 years than Iwo Jima (Ito) did in 5 weeks... and, strategically, it is infinitely more more important. If you overweight people 'not liking us' as part of the cost, then maybe it will eventually approach even up.
In 5 years, Iraq has cost us:
- over 4000 dead & tens of thousands of injured US soldiers,
- hundreds of thousands of killed & injured Iraqis,
- Billions - approaching TRILLIONS - of dollars,
- a weakened dollar,
- increased oil prices,
- deteriorating infrastructure (because, after all, it's more important to throw more money into Iraq than it is to maintain our own country),
- & higher prices for just about everything (except houses)
than it should have.
And that's not even factoring in our disapproval rating around the world, increased terrorism & violence, & our ever DECREASING influence with both our allies AND enemies.