[JerRocks2day]

I'm going to be voting this year as soon as I turn 18. My brother said don't vote for McCain because he wants to keep our troops in Iraq and that it will hurt our economy. Any thoughts whether McCain is good or bad?

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by JerRocks2day

I'm going to be voting this year as soon as I turn 18. My brother said don't vote for McCain because he wants to keep our troops in Iraq and that it will hurt our economy. Any thoughts whether McCain is good or bad?

Seems like an upstanding guy... however I disagree with his position on Iraq (stay for decades), and he's admitted and shown that he lacks an understanding of economics (like the call for a gas-tax holiday).

[nbfan]

Originally Posted by JerRocks2day

I'm going to be voting this year as soon as I turn 18. My brother said don't vote for McCain because he wants to keep our troops in Iraq and that it will hurt our economy. Any thoughts whether McCain is good or bad?

If I liked McCain for everything but his Iraq policy, then I probably would still vote for him. But the war in Iraq has a lot less to do with the economy than a lot of other things.

[JerRocks2day]

Originally Posted by nbfan

If I liked McCain for everything but his Iraq policy, then I probably would still vote for him. But the war in Iraq has a lot less to do with the economy than a lot of other things.

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

[Than]

I liked him a lot better when he was running against George W. for the nomination. Now it seems like he's fallen in line right behind Pres. Bush so he can win his party's nomination. I personally wouldn't in good conscience vote for him, but I guess it depends on what you feel is right politically, etc.

[nbfan]

Originally Posted by JerRocks2day

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

Oh no, he's definitely the person to vote for, IMO.

I agree with his policies...and Barack and Hillary make me vomit.

[t3dwb]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Seems like an upstanding guy... however I disagree with his position on Iraq (stay for decades), and he's admitted and shown that he lacks an understanding of economics (like the call for a gas-tax holiday).

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.

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.

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.

t3dwb

[jthomas1600]

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.

t3dwb

I have noticed the same thing and haven't heard them (or McCain) talking about real issues as much as they used to. Hillary seems to realy be focusing on what some consider to be character flaws of her opponent. Also Rev. Wright has diverted much of the attention to himself. Some times it seems the 2008 democaratic nomination compaign is just another reality TV show.

[tht00]

Originally Posted by nbfan

Oh no, he's definitely the person to vote for, IMO.

I agree with his policies...and Barack and Hillary make me vomit.

I don't like any of the 3 that are left, and if I vote, it will likely be a write-in.


Interesting video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ioy90nF2anI (McCain vs. McCain)

McCain on troops in Haiti, 1994: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=palbo-ilalU

McCain has changed since that speech in '94 and effectively adopted neoconservative policy. I, personally, can't vote for him.

[Dr. Worm]

Originally Posted by JerRocks2day

I'm going to be voting this year as soon as I turn 18.

I'd probably hold off at least until November.

Originally Posted by JerRocks2day

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

That is not something that anybody can tell you. You should vote for the person that you want to see in office. People base that decision off of many different things, and even the criteria for determining who the best candidate is is ultimately something you must decide for yourself. It is true, our military presence in Iraq is costing a lot of money, and this money has to come from somewhere. It's also true that an immediate pull out could be detrimental to the stability in the region. What is more important to you? What do you think is the proper role of the U.S. military in Iraq? Is it our job to police the world? Unilaterally? Why? Or alternatively, is it our responsibility to prevent war and human suffering to the best of our abilities? Is our presence in Iraq doing that? Is the money we are spending there worth it? Depending on how you feel about these questions, maybe McCain is the right candidate for you to vote for, maybe he isn't.

And of course, you then should ask, is the war even the most important issue for you in this election? Each candidate's platform goes far beyond just their stance on the war. Are you ok with voting for a pro-choice candidate? Does health care matter to you? Whose economic plan makes sense to you? No one can answer these questions for you.

[Mattlock]

We got for flyers from him, and there was nothing about anything but raising the defense budget, increasing military action worldwide, ect.

Our defense budget (which is an awful term for it, we haven't done anything with that money besides start offensive wars in the last 50 years) is already what, 50% of our budget? And he wants to raise it?

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.

To use a hippie cliche: "Bombing for peace is like f***ing for virginity."

Do you believe that if we set-up a democracy it will last long? In order for a nation such as Iraq to be stable, there needs to be a dictator. You have two groups that are extremely opposed to each other, to the point of militancy. Asking them to compromise is not going to happen. Plain and simple. Us meddling with their affairs isn't going to help much, either.

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.

The honest truth is that we should have none.

[nbfan]

Originally Posted by Mattlock

The honest truth is that we should have none.

Let me point something out: That's your honest opinion.

[slap_j]

Originally Posted by Mattlock

Do you believe that if we set-up a democracy it will last long?

Besides, the US isn't in the setting-up-democracy business. And it's almost ludicrous for us to expect Iran to take us seriously. Anyone recall Operation Ajax? We helped overthrow the democratically elected Mossadegh and replaced him with a puppet dictator (Pahlavi). And all of this in the interest of the AIOC (Anglo-Iranian Oil Company).

[Mattlock]

Originally Posted by nbfan

Let me point something out: That's your honest opinion.

Hypothetical situation.

It's the 1850's. It doesn't really matter which side you are on, but there's two groups in the U.S.: The abolitionists and the pro-slavery groups. Both are very militant and in our congress have even beaten members of opposing parties to near death. Other civilians who who radically oppose slavery form a small militia to kill slave owners and free the slaves.

Let's say, Britain, or another country who has much more power and influence in the world than we do, looks at our situation and says "What's going on in this country is wrong. We don't agree with their policies." So they decide "well, we are going to end slavery in that country because if we don't do anything now, they're going to end up in civil war."

So without our consent, Britain (or hypothetical country) sends military force to "correct" the situation. They also find it necessary to turn the country into a constitutional monarchy (in the case of Britain, at least, which is a bit less ludicrous than imposing democracy) because our incompetent government can't and won't abolish slavery, so obviously, representative democracy isn't the best form of government. It's constitutional monarchy. (Bear with me, I know they are similar, but that's not the point.)

Now take a look at how it panned out. We solved the problem on our own and came up with our own solution, which was fighting a very bloody civil war.

Which one is more appealing?

Yes, the two situations are very different, but they also have their similarities. It's just something to think about.

[nbfan]

Originally Posted by Mattlock

Hypothetical situation.

It's the 1850's. It doesn't really matter which side you are on, but there's two groups in the U.S.: The abolitionists and the pro-slavery groups. Both are very militant and in our congress have even beaten members of opposing parties to near death. Other civilians who who radically oppose slavery form a small militia to kill slave owners and free the slaves.

Let's say, Britain, or another country who has much more power and influence in the world than we do, looks at our situation and says "What's going on in this country is wrong. We don't agree with their policies." So they decide "well, we are going to end slavery in that country because if we don't do anything now, they're going to end up in civil war."

So without our consent, Britain (or hypothetical country) sends military force to "correct" the situation. They also find it necessary to turn the country into a constitutional monarchy (in the case of Britain, at least, which is a bit less ludicrous than imposing democracy) because our incompetent government can't and won't abolish slavery, so obviously, representative democracy isn't the best form of government. It's constitutional monarchy. (Bear with me, I know they are similar, but that's not the point.)

Now take a look at how it panned out. We solved the problem on our own and came up with our own solution, which was fighting a very bloody civil war.

Which one is more appealing?

Yes, the two situations are very different, but they also have their similarities. It's just something to think about.

I definitely am catching your drift. And I also see the very different situations. 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. 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? 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?
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.