When it becomes Hillary v McCain

[lookout123]

I guess you lost me there. How does it fall apart?

Let's pretend for a minute. It's WWII and a presidential hopeful is asked how long we would have troops in Germany. The hopeful responds by pointing out that Americans don't really care too much about where troops are stationed as long as they aren't being killed and injured in combat and goes on to say that having bases in Germany might be strategically useful for an unknown amount of time into the future. Would you feel the need to announce that the candidate will keep us in a state of war indefinitely? Or would you accept that unfortunately, there may be some value to the idea of having bases in the region if and when victory is secured?

There is a huge difference between what he said and what some people are saying he meant. I'm not a McCain fan, but show some objectivity in your dislike for the man.

[Happy Monkey]

Keeping troops in Iraq will keep us in a state of war indefinitely. How long is he willing to let that go on, in hopes of it turning into Germany?

[lookout123]

OK, I didn't hear him say he was going to leave troops there forever regardless of peace/war status. I thought it was a pretty general statement making a very good point that we need to quit all the talk about what date can we circle on the calendar for a pull-out and instead focus on what it will take to get us to a situation where our troops aren't being shot at on a daily basis. Maybe that is a complete pull-out, maybe it isn't but I think his point was valid.

If the war is your primary issue then fair enough, but let's acknowledge that we are currently at war. 2 of the 3 candidates voted in favor of authorizing the war. The third candidate stands on his "I was against the war" credentials while ignoring the fact that he was a nobody when the issue was at hand. Let's not pretend that Obama stood in a position of power, saw the same information that the other two did and was the sole shining light of intelligence that was ignored. Pretty much everyone in power bought into the Iraq war to some degree in '02/'03. We're there. Now what? What is the best way to extract ourselves from the mess and leave some possibility for stability after we're gone?

[xoxoxoBruce]

We're there. Now what? What is the best way to extract ourselves from the mess and leave some possibility for stability after we're gone?

That's the bottom line, well stated.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Keeping troops in Iraq will keep us in a state of war indefinitely. How long is he willing to let that go on, in hopes of it turning into Germany?

You base this on your years of experience doing what?

[Radar]

Originally Posted by lookout123

OK, I didn't hear him say he was going to leave troops there forever regardless of peace/war status. I thought it was a pretty general statement making a very good point that we need to quit all the talk about what date can we circle on the calendar for a pull-out and instead focus on what it will take to get us to a situation where our troops aren't being shot at on a daily basis. Maybe that is a complete pull-out, maybe it isn't but I think his point was valid.

If the war is your primary issue then fair enough, but let's acknowledge that we are currently at war. 2 of the 3 candidates voted in favor of authorizing the war. The third candidate stands on his "I was against the war" credentials while ignoring the fact that he was a nobody when the issue was at hand. Let's not pretend that Obama stood in a position of power, saw the same information that the other two did and was the sole shining light of intelligence that was ignored. Pretty much everyone in power bought into the Iraq war to some degree in '02/'03. We're there. Now what? What is the best way to extract ourselves from the mess and leave some possibility for stability after we're gone?

There were 26 people in the Senate who voted against the unconstitutional "authorization of force" against Iraq. They were in the same position of power as any other Senator including Senator McCain and Senator Clinton. These 26 people did see the same bogus evidence, and were told the same things as the others, but they had the foresight, intelligence, and judgment to know they were being lied to and to stand up for what was right.

Senator Byrd begged the American people to stop this and said their children would die from it. Sadly, he was right.

The fact is Obama is better with foreign policy than either of the other candidates and he's more able to give a rational and intelligent answer if you call him at 3am.

[lookout123]

Of those 26 people who voted no, how many are in the presidential race? Zero, you say? So there are two people in the presidential race who were in the senate at the time and they both voted for authorization.

What exactly in Obama's experience has better equipped him for foreign policy issues? Was it his experience as a community activist? His time in the state legislature? His term in the senate? What exactly? He may very well be capable of showing exceptional skill in the area if he wins the race, but don't point to his opposition to the war when he was a state legislator and had no say in the matter as evidence of his expertise.

This is no longer an issue of how we got there, but an issue of how best to get out. In addition to that, it is important to remember that the war may be the single biggest issue, but it isn't the only issue a President will be involved in.

if you call him at 3am.

swayed by marketing, much?

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by lookout123

OK, I didn't hear him say he was going to leave troops there forever regardless of peace/war status.

Then you didn't hear him answer a question relevant to the reality of the situation. He's asked about Bush's refusal to contemplate leaving Iraq, and he says that if everything turns out hunky dory we could stay there forever?

I thought it was a pretty general statement making a very good point that we need to quit all the talk about what date can we circle on the calendar for a pull-out and instead focus on what it will take to get us to a situation where our troops aren't being shot at on a daily basis. Maybe that is a complete pull-out, maybe it isn't but I think his point was valid.

What it took for Germany and Japan was the defeat of their military. Already done in Iraq. That model won't work. What it took in Korea was an entire half of the country (geographically) supporting us. We're trying to turn our massive embassy and the Green Zone into South Korea.

Now what? What is the best way to extract ourselves from the mess and leave some possibility for stability after we're gone?

Step 1: Acknowledge extraction as a goal. No government with the appearance of being our puppet can provide stability, and one in the shadow of a 104 acre fortress in the middle of Baghdad will have to work hard to not give that appearance, even assuming we withdraw most of the troops.

[lookout123]

Fair enough, which candidate has said that extraction is not a goal?

[Happy Monkey]

There is no interpretation of "why not 100" that includes extraction, whether the 100 years is during or after hostilities.

[lookout123]

So what you're saying that unless a candidate stands up and says "I promise to remove every single american from Iraqi soil on such and such date" then they are a proponent of war without end?

[Radar]

Originally Posted by lookout123

Of those 26 people who voted no, how many are in the presidential race? Zero, you say? So there are two people in the presidential race who were in the senate at the time and they both voted for authorization.

What exactly in Obama's experience has better equipped him for foreign policy issues? Was it his experience as a community activist? His time in the state legislature? His term in the senate? What exactly? He may very well be capable of showing exceptional skill in the area if he wins the race, but don't point to his opposition to the war when he was a state legislator and had no say in the matter as evidence of his expertise.

This is no longer an issue of how we got there, but an issue of how best to get out. In addition to that, it is important to remember that the war may be the single biggest issue, but it isn't the only issue a President will be involved in.

swayed by marketing, much?

What exactly makes Obama better at foreign policy? Perhaps it's the fact that he is from an international family. Perhaps it's has something to do with his travels abroad. it doesn't really matter what the reason is, the fact remains that he's displayed better judgment, and leadership ability than the other two candidates.

As far as the war not being the only issue goes, if all Barrack Obama did was end the war on his first day in office and do nothing else, he'll be a thousand times more accomplished and respected around the world than George W. Bush and his entire family will ever be.

[Happy Monkey]

If McCain's cue for ending the war is when Iraq is stable and Americans are no longer targets of attack, and his "why not 100" only includes time after that point, then he is in favor of staying well over 100 years.

[lookout123]

he'll be a thousand times more accomplished and respected around the world than George W. Bush and his entire family will ever be.

Kind of an underwhelming goal if you ask me.

the fact remains that he's displayed better judgment, and leadership ability than the other two candidates.

Would the judgement I'm meant to admire being his frequent use of the "present" vote to avoid having to actually take a stand on anything? And I'm looking for the leadership experience too, where was that again?

Well, if he wins I hope you're right about having an international family being great training for the presidency. As it stands though, I'm skeptical.

[Radar]

His frequent use of the "present" vote proves he has better judgment than most. Many times, legislators are asked to vote on a piece of legislation without ever even being given a copy of it to read. This happened with the Patriot Act.

By voting "present" he is stating that he won't vote for or against something that he doesn't have an appropriate amount of information to make a judgment on. He's preventing people from rushing thing through without them being read carefully and understood.

He takes a stand when he's got all the information. I'm a lot more skeptical of having Bush part II, or Clinton Part II. It's about time we had a White House that didn't have a Bush or a Clinton in it.