McCain's timeline

[Auburn85 432]

You just don't get it. It's about Iraqi political reconciliation which is not happening. And your reasoning is so flawed it's not even worth arguing point by point.

Sure we can stay there for 100 years and keep the peace and "stabalize" the country but so what? Where does that get us? There is no military solution to the problem and you are smart enough to know it. Not to mention, the thousands of other problems this strategy creates including an overstretched military, taken our eyes off of AQ and I could go on and on. Your grandstanding is laughable because even you know your positions are flawed.

Again, this whole notion that we should keep injecting treasure and troops into someone else's civil war is beyond stupid. We can stabalize Iraq from North to South but we can't make people get along and form a democracy. You realize how pointless this whole "stategy" is don't you?

You refuse to answer my questions about a military solution, how this has made us more safe, etc. b/c you can't.

I see right through you. Take your dog and pony show elsewhere. The politics of fear is not going to work any more and neither is Bush's head-in-the-sand cowboy-approach to foreign policy.

this issue is a double-edged sword.

do we as a country keep pumping in troops and funds for damage control purposes.

what are the consequences in we pull out today and are completely out of Iraq in 16 months? RIR, will the violence increase or decrease if we started pulling out today? Will the deaths increase or decrease if we pull out today? If we have the political courage to stay or to cut the funds, then, so be it. We can blame Bush all we want. We can even send Bush and Cheney to Guantanemo Bay for the rest of their lives. That will make some people cheer and feel good for a short time, but then, reality will set in.

[Auburn85 432]

Political reconcilication is not happening. I mean for gosh sake, wake up son. Sunnis members have literally walked out of the process.

Ok, democrats have the majority. Cut the funds. Force the troops back home if it's this much of a lost cause. Don't play a carrot and stick game with the election to bring troops home. This game has been played before. Democrats took back the majority in 06 mainly because they were going to bring the troops home. We'll, troops weren't brought home. In fact, Bush managed a troop surge.

Now, Democrats have won a couple of more seats, adding to their majority. Why not go ahead and start bringing the troops home if it's a lost cause. Harry Reid was quoted as saying "The War is Lost." Yet, somehow while being the majoirty leader, a troop surge happened. Additional funding passed.

If we want to throw in the possibility of political suicide for Democrats if they cut the funds then ,so be it. I thought elections weren't as important as human lives.

Look at it this way too.

Isn't McCain risking politcal suicide by being so outspoken in favor of the War? He is supporting an overwelmingly unpopular war.

[Auburn85 432]

You just don't get it. It's about Iraqi political reconciliation which is not happening. And your reasoning is so flawed it's not even worth arguing point by point. Sure we can stay there for 100 years and keep the peace and "stabalize" the country but so what? Where does that get us? There is no military solution to the problem and you are smart enough to know it. Not to mention, the thousands of other problems this strategy creates including an overstretched military, taken our eyes off of AQ and I could go on and on. Your grandstanding is laughable because even you know your positions are flawed.

I get it entirely, actually.

Again, the entire point of asymmetrical warfare, which has been our doctrine for all of one year, is seeking a political solution as the end game of military operations, not simply shooting up Iraqi villages. It is an important and crucial distinction. I really wish you'd bother actually learning this stuff.

Further, Iraqi units have steadily begun taking more and more operational initiative in the field, and doing a progressively better job of it. You no longer have rampant desertions. As recent operations have shown, Iraqis are showing flexibility in the field, a good command structure, and competent small-unit tactics.

Because the Iraqi military has improved markedly, and is continuing to improve, it becomes much more likely that over the next several years, the Iraqi state can be self-policing and fight this dwindling insurgency with much lower levels of support. The signs are there. The foundation is now in place. Five more years of this, and our force levels can be a fraction of what they are today.

But the situation remains fragile at the moment, and I've already addressed the ramifications of pulling out before this happens. A belief that we can pull out 16 months after Obama takes the oath of office will cause far more damage than our current policy. Obama's strategy is nothing of the kind.

Political reconcilication is not happening. I mean for gosh sake, wake up son. Sunnis members have literally walked out of the process.

It may be an apples to orange comparison, but how long did it take this country to form a Constitution? Then, we had our constitution, but we allowed slavery and women weren't allowed to vote. Our country had a Civil War. Slaves were technically freed, but they didn't have any Civil Rights. Some were lynched with no justice sought out for them. They didn't have a choice to which school they wanted to. Heck, they couldn't even sit on the bus where they wanted to. This country went from the freeing of the slaves in 1861 to 1968 in passing a Civil Rights Act.

But to think that a country like Iraq can somehow move toward political bliss at this point after what we went through what we did to become the country we are today is a little unrealistic. I wish they would currently have a full-fledge fuctioning government. I wish the war would end. I wish Iraq begins to thrive by leaps and bounds.

Al-Quaeda may or may not have been in Iraq before our invasion, but they have a presence in Iraq now. Why are they in Iraq now? Is it because they hate America so much? Or do they see a new breed of recruits for genrations to come? Does Al-Quaeda not have enough to choose from in Afghansitan? Why are they in Pakistan? We didn't invade Pakistan did we? I guess the excuse given is because we support Paksitan. I don't guess it has anything to do with a woman possibly ever having the chance to be in power or having some sort of elections. Maybe they are in Iraq cause they don't like a certain kind of people in Iraq and it's not just Americans.

[arnaldoabru 11]

Good lord, Ruin. You really should learn to be a better listener and reader. You just post stuff willy-nilly without really paying attention to it. That's not political discourse. It's just some terrible spasm you have.

First of all, there's nothing in that video that states "I think we should withdraw by XX date." I'm not sure what fantasy land you live in, but he was talking about the upcoming political debate in the Senate, citing a raft of political and military experts who are against an arbitrary withdrawal date. Now, his wording was a bit convoluted, but there is simply no statement in there that suggests that he favored a pullout.

However, if you're comparing how the candidates view the endgame in Iraq, then let's see:

Hmmm...let's see. Obama has an artificial timeline to pull all troops out in the next few months, regardless of the political and military situation on the ground.

McCain's remarks today, on the other hand, projects that a large presence of American troops will not be required in Iraq. His reasoning is based on the ongoing success we're now enjoying due to the wholesale change in American doctrine implemented in 2007. However, again, he does not state that all American troops will be out of the country by then.

There is no artificial timeline, they will be out in 16 months.

As for McCain, this guy is clueless. One minute he's talking about 100 years, the next he's talking about 2013. One minute he's saying stay the course, the next he's saying that's not what he means.

I guess the funniest part is coming on this board and watching you all trying to make sense of his spin.

If anyone is clueless on this, it's Obama. No sane person can advocate yanking out the troops in 16 months. As bad as the situation has been in the past, it's showed promising signs of stabilizing over the past year. Now that we're on the cusp of actually putting the country back on some kind of decent footing, pulling out American forces will yield total chaos. You might as well mail an engraved invitation to the Iranians offering them the opportunity to take over the country, and then hold sway over the Arabian Peninsula. And if you're whining about the price of oil now, just you wait when that happens.

I'm really astonished that people believe in this childish drivel. Hell no, I wasn't in favor of the invasion. But I also believe in cleaning up the messes we make. And pulling a suave qui peut will cause a far greater degree of damage to Iraqis, the economy, and the long-term strategic interests of the country.

Your right we couldn't pull out in 6 months.We have to protect the over 150,000 contractors over their for Haliburton and others with their billion dollar contracts.

[CCTAU 3,350]

Good lord, Ruin. You really should learn to be a better listener and reader. You just post stuff willy-nilly without really paying attention to it. That's not political discourse. It's just some terrible spasm you have.

First of all, there's nothing in that video that states "I think we should withdraw by XX date." I'm not sure what fantasy land you live in, but he was talking about the upcoming political debate in the Senate, citing a raft of political and military experts who are against an arbitrary withdrawal date. Now, his wording was a bit convoluted, but there is simply no statement in there that suggests that he favored a pullout.

However, if you're comparing how the candidates view the endgame in Iraq, then let's see:

Hmmm...let's see. Obama has an artificial timeline to pull all troops out in the next few months, regardless of the political and military situation on the ground.

McCain's remarks today, on the other hand, projects that a large presence of American troops will not be required in Iraq. His reasoning is based on the ongoing success we're now enjoying due to the wholesale change in American doctrine implemented in 2007. However, again, he does not state that all American troops will be out of the country by then.

There is no artificial timeline, they will be out in 16 months.

As for McCain, this guy is clueless. One minute he's talking about 100 years, the next he's talking about 2013. One minute he's saying stay the course, the next he's saying that's not what he means.

I guess the funniest part is coming on this board and watching you all trying to make sense of his spin.

If anyone is clueless on this, it's Obama. No sane person can advocate yanking out the troops in 16 months. As bad as the situation has been in the past, it's showed promising signs of stabilizing over the past year. Now that we're on the cusp of actually putting the country back on some kind of decent footing, pulling out American forces will yield total chaos. You might as well mail an engraved invitation to the Iranians offering them the opportunity to take over the country, and then hold sway over the Arabian Peninsula. And if you're whining about the price of oil now, just you wait when that happens.

I'm really astonished that people believe in this childish drivel. Hell no, I wasn't in favor of the invasion. But I also believe in cleaning up the messes we make. And pulling a suave qui peut will cause a far greater degree of damage to Iraqis, the economy, and the long-term strategic interests of the country.

Your right we couldn't pull out in 6 months.We have to protect the over 150,000 contractors over their for Haliburton and others with their billion dollar contracts.

You mean the contracts that the Clinton administration set up?

[RunInRed 16,495]

You mean the contracts that the Clinton administration set up?

The Clinton administration setup contracts in Iraq?

[autigeremt 6,717]

Runinred63:

I have no personal issues with you or any of your Obama followers, but come on!!!!

Have you truly read the history of the United States of America from the days of it's beginings to where we are today????? If the democrats were in power at that time, we would be a listless bunch of little governments with no real sense of direction (You can actually make a case about our political process at the moment ). It took nearly 100 years for this country to "Get a Grip" on where it wanted to go and be. For you to think that it should take this period of time to get Iraq under political control is foolish.

That said, I would liked to have seen the Powell Doctrine in action instead of the idiot Rumsfeld. Bush's biggest flaw in my opinion was making Rumsfeld Sec. of Defense and not Powell.