I think we would all rather have that $ back and unlike other expenditures, we may actually recover some of it. Iraq has a huge surplus now. Maybe the next prez can break off some of that $. McCain believed in this war, as did most of the dems and repubs, including Biden and Hillary, btw. But he is not a warmonger and nothing suggests he will be. This is crazy. He clearly said repeatedly that the surge would not work. It has been shown that he is wrong, he admitted that it has worked categorically, but will not admit he is wrong for purely political reasons. That is understandable, but does not change the fact that the surge has/is working, and he said it would not. He was wrong. Saying anything else is just political parsing. I share your unhappiness but am thankful a successful strategy is being implemented in Iraq that will allow us to return our focus on Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Maybe, but if the choice is let Iraq keep the money and pay us back slowly or for us to continue to be involved in what is going on in their country, I'd choose the former. I'm not quite saying he is a warmonger, but based on what I've read he believes we should have stayed in Vietnam and hasn't argued that we shouldn't have gone into Vietnam or Iraq. He is very blustery, which makes me uncomfortable. I get the feeling he'd be quicker to consider the military option than Obama, which I don't like. Many did believe in this war, but Obama didn't and said so from the start. I believe that displayed incredibly uncommon and desirable foresight; more than the experience of McCain and Palin provided. Given the information we had to work with, I don't think wanting to put a close to military involvement was the absolutely wrong decision. If he said the surge wouldn't work, history may prove him wrong on that point. I think it is too early to tell. There is no way to know that ending our military involvement sooner would have been disastrous. I think we would have saved many billions of dollars and our national security would probably be no worse off. Would the stability of Iraq be worse off? I think that's really hard to say. Just because the surge seems to be working doesn't mean that Obama was wrong to oppose it.
I disagree. He does not believe the Vietnam war should have been waged in the same manner and that we should not have left the way we did. With our tail between our legs. The fact that he has been to war, and suffered some of it's greatest horrors seems to have tempered him quite a bit. He is principled, but I have no reason to believe he will rush to war. However, I do believe should we end up in one, he will do everything he can to win it, and get our troops safely back home. Well, there used to be two people in America that thought the surge hasn't worked, but now Obama has recanted, so I guess you are the last man standing. Well, it's called military history, so logic says you are wrong. This conclusion is absolutely nutty.:insane:
It also seems that he doesn't think going to war in Vietnam and Iraq were the wrong choice from the outset. I'm not very knowledgeable about the need for the Vietnam war, but I feel pretty clear that the Iraq war was a mistake from the start. On the other hand, McCain thinks we should have simply fought a better war in Iraq. The truth of the matter is that no war can be perfectly executed, particularly if the goal is unclear and it is unpopular with a large segment of Americans. Maybe McCain could have executed the Iraq war better, but I don't see where he opposes it in principle. Maybe you believe McCain won't get us in tangential and unnecessary wars, but in these cases, doing everything we can to win is doing too much, IMO. If a war is ill-conceived, the sooner we realize it the better. Cute. Excuse me for reserving judgment, but I haven't said the surge hasn't worked. As I see it you are missing my point. At any point in time there are infinite paths of action, and in this case we are simply talking about two different paths of action. The surge was chosen, and many argue that it has been successful. That does not mean it was the best choice, only one of many possible successful choices. I think it is very likely that a different path, particularly starting sooner to draw our involvement in Iraq to an end could have been at least as successful in the grand scheme of things for America. You are doggedly focused on winning the war in Iraq while that is only one small concern of ours, IMO. I don't want our country to be the regular arbiter of peace in the middle east should tensions flair in Iraq. In the grand scheme, I'm not sure we can secure a victory in Iraq anytime soon (depends on how you ultimately define victory), and in the meantime more pressing issues are suffering because Iraq is absorbing too many of our resources. All said without calling you names. Some might not be aware that is a possible means of communication here on TF. Nutter-butter. Strike my previous comment.
Are you under the impression that the Iraq occupation is over and everything is fine? That's nonsense and you can take it from the only man who knows-General Petraeus. According to Petraeus, the American situation in Iraq remains "fragile", recent security gains are "not irreversible" and "this is not the sort of struggle where you take a hill, plant the flag and go home to a victory parade... it's not a war with a simple slogan." Compare this with Sarah Palin's belief that "victory in Iraq is wholly in sight" and her criticism of Barack Obama for not using the word "victory". Well, Genral Petraeus has never used the word "victory" either. The war was won in 21 days in 2003. This subsequent occupation blunder is not over and things in Iraq are not back to normal. There is no "victory" to be had here. You win an occupation by ending the occupation and leaving.
you and harry reid seem to be on the same page Reid: Iraq War lost, U.S. can't win Anti-war liberals in House reluctant to mount opposition to Iraq funding bill Haraz N. Ghanbari / AP House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of Calf., left, Senate Majority Leader Sen. Harry Reid of Nev., right, and House Majority Whip James Clyburn of S.C., meet with reporters outside the White House, following a meeting between President Bush and Congressional leaders,Wednesday, April 18, 2007, NBC VIDEO Senate majority leader: 'This war is lost' April 20: Senate majority leader Harry Reid compares the conflict in Iraq with Vietnam. MSNBC military analyst Col. Jack Jacobs discusses the comments. MSNBC Cartoons The week in political cartoons Book review: 'Sarah' -- filling in the gaps Obama raises $66 million in August Palin's 'Bridge to Nowhere' line returns http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18227928/
Don't be obtuse. I've made my own clearly worded statements including one in this thread that says "We WON the war in 21 days". If you want to challenge any of MY statements then do so and be prepared to back them up. But trying to say I "seem to be on the same page" with someone I"VE NEVER EVEN MENTIONED, much less one whose views I don't advocate is a pathetic excuse for an argument. When someone tries to discredit me personally instead of trying to attack my statements, then I know he has exhausted his logic and lost the debate.
ok, have it your way.....maybe it's just coincidence that you and reid seem to say the same things..... insofar as being obtuse don't get your panties in a wad. no one is attacking you personally, i tied what seems to be your contention to that of reid's. are you distancing yourself from this position?
When the election is over I believe you will find most military types vote for McCain. The fact that Obama is getting more money from troops may only suggest that his supporters in the military are more willing to donate that McCain supporters. That's regrettable, but the money numbers may not be an accurate indication of the numbers of McCain military supporters versus Obama military supporters.
