[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by t3dwb

The same democrats that have been screeming that we need to pull our military out imediatly for the last 4 yrs have now begun to back peddal and admit that there is no way to make that happen over night. because they know that if they are elected they will look foolish when those ideas are compared with reality.

An overnight pull-out would be a bad idea. Staying in for 50 years is an equally bad idea.

Now you tell me that, while McCain has stayed resolute on his bad-idea, his opposition has looked at the reality and is adjusting their position to something more pragmatic? That seems like a reason to vote for the opposition.

the fact is that it makes no difference how or why we got there, we can not just turn our backs and walk away.If we do then ther will be bloody civil war that would probably leve the entire nation more unstable and dangerous than it has ever been to this date.

You mean like unstable Vietnam? The fact is it cooled down in much less time after we left than while we were there.

Still, the issue remains. There is a civil war, and we are keeping it alive at our own expense. I'm looking for the up-side.

john doesn't want to have to be there for decades to come, but he is being honest about the aftermath of the war and the future of our military role in the region.

That's a matter of choice... but I suppose it's an ideology difference... you are a tax-and-spend welfare proponent (in this case, welfare in Iraq) and I am not.

[nbfan]

Vietnam did not cool down. The Communists overran the South and took it over. Then they killed anyone who opposed the government.

Am I seeing a parallel?

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by nbfan

Vietnam did not cool down. The Communists overran the South and took it over. Then they killed anyone who opposed the government.

I've quite a few friends who have been to Vietnam... one now lives there. They didn't notice any ongoing genocide. Seems it did indeed cool down.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by nbfan

Too rival Islam branches killing each other until no one is left standing is what happens there right now. That's something that, although being very unfortunate, can't be resolved unless one side (or even better, both sides) is ready to let go of their pride, and agree to disagree.

It seems to me that those two rival branches have been living in Iraq for nigh-on 500 years and they are still standing.

How do jive your speculation that they cannot coexist as they are with the fact that they have coexisted for a half-melennia?

We resolved our situation in the 19 Century because the South broke away, so the North had to get it back. But not before having to fight one of the most bloody wars in the history of this nation. Does that sound like a good fate for Iraq?

Nope... but it has already happend. Have you looked at how many Iraqis are dead?

If we pull out ASAP, then all the progress that we ever made will be overturned within a few months, Shia muslims will continue to blow themselves up in the middle of groups of kids, and it will likely never come to an end. Does that sound like a good fate for Iraq?

Can you show me some other wars that never came to an end so that I can compare?

To close this: Think of all the innocent people Sadam killed. Think of all the people he'd be killing right now if we had not stopped him.

How many people did Saddam kill per year? I'd like to compare it to the current casualty figures.

[ApparentlyNothing]

Originally Posted by JerRocks2day

I guess he's not the right person to vote for, right?

You need to think for yourself for once.

[Bryan]

McCain has been endorsed by John Hagee


run away! run away! run away!

[JerRocks2day]

Originally Posted by Bryan

McCain has been endorsed by John Hagee


run away! run away! run away!

But I like Hagee. Although he does got some explaining to do for his book "In Defense of Israel."

[Folk_guy]

I opposed us sending troups into Iraq, but I don't think it is practical for us to pull out immediately. I do think that we need to have a defined time table for the Iraq government to take over their own countries defense. That time table shouldn't be 50 to 100 years as John McCain is proposing. We can't as a nation afford it. Our economy is in the toilet, we owe tons of money to foreign nations because of our long term involvement there, and we rack up more and more every day we stay there. Many military personel are being extended beyond their intended obligations, and are getting out in groves as soon as they can. The Army is horendously understaffed, and new volunteers aren't coming in because of our long term involvement in Iraq.

[Rainer.]

^ I'd be interested in seeing some facts and statistics to support your claims.

I would let it be known that I've been a supporter of John McCain since Bush won the last election, seeing as he has been the next in line as the Republican front-runner for quite some time. Not to mention, I've been described as pretty uber-conservative and I bleed Republican. Experience-wise, I think McCain would be more effective than any other of the presidents at dealing with Congress, I do think that his plan for Iraq is realistic, though I think during the next president's administration, whoever is in office, some bipartisan compromise will have to come out.

[Folk_guy]

Rainer, regarding the budget here is a link to a chart based on congressional statistics on the dificit, look at the peak in the Clinton years, and the dismal low now: http://www.uuforum.org/deficit.htm, as far as the military goes I know first hand I'm a recently retired reservist who is part of the exodus of people from the Army. Check out this article from Military.com recruiting is at it's lowest level since 1979: http://www.military.com/NewsContent/...tml?ESRC=eb.nl . Or check out this article on military recruiting and retention by Fox News (a normally conservative institution) http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,101375,00.html

[Fandrew]

Originally Posted by Folk_guy

I opposed us sending troups into Iraq, but I don't think it is practical for us to pull out immediately. I do think that we need to have a defined time table for the Iraq government to take over their own countries defense. That time table shouldn't be 50 to 100 years as John McCain is proposing. We can't as a nation afford it. Our economy is in the toilet, we owe tons of money to foreign nations because of our long term involvement there, and we rack up more and more every day we stay there. Many military personel are being extended beyond their intended obligations, and are getting out in groves as soon as they can. The Army is horendously understaffed, and new volunteers aren't coming in because of our long term involvement in Iraq.

We've owed other countries money LONG before Iraq. It doesn't help that the US continually forgives the debts other countries owe us.

[Than]

Originally Posted by Rainer.

Experience-wise, I think McCain would be more effective than any other of the presidents at dealing with Congress.

He's going to be running against an experienced U.S. Senator no matter who his democratic opponent is. What do you think makes him more effective? I'm not trying to pick a fight, I'm just interested to hear why you that.

[Bryan]

Originally Posted by Than

He's going to be running against an experienced U.S. Senator no matter who his democratic opponent is. What do you think makes him more effective? I'm not trying to pick a fight, I'm just interested to hear why you that.

whatever, Hillary has only complete 1 full term and Obama hasn't even done that. They don't have a lot of experience in Senate.

[Qingu]

I don't buy into the "war on terror" but I do think we are at war with radical Islam. There is a significant number of religious extremists around the world who are actively working to destroy us (or "The West") and kill people in our culture.

McCain is absolutely the wrong person to fight this war. He has the same WW2 mentality as the neocons who gave us the war in Iraq—we should spread democracy by force. He jokes about bombing Iran, a country with a strong liberal constituency who actually helped us fight the Taliban and has a strategic interest in fighting al-Qaeda.

We need a president who actually understands the complex dynamics of Arabic and Islamic cultures, who doesn't repeatedly mistake "Shia" and "Sunni" or mislabel al-Qaedas supporters. Not because I want a president who is culturally aware for awareness' sake—because I want a president who's informed enough to make a good wartime strategy against our enemies.

We also need to stop funding Saudi Salafi groups who spend billions of dollars spreading extremist propoganda across the world. These groups are directly funded by the government of Saudi Arabia, and we give them this money in exchange for oil. Our oil dependence is part of our national security problem, and the Democrats are going to do much more about that than the Republicans.

I am sick and tired of Republicans running on a national security platform. By any rational estimate their policies have made our country and the world far less safe, and they've made our enemies much stronger.

[PontiusPirate]

whatever, Hillary has only complete 1 full term and Obama hasn't even done that. They don't have a lot of experience in Senate.

Looking at the last 2 terms....
and the combined experience.....

Experience doesn't mean jack.