McCain's Foreign Policy Gaffe, Lieberman has to Correct Him.

[ViolaLee]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6GBdyws5YU



John McCain said it's common knowledge that Al Qaeda is receiving training from Iran and going into Iraq.

Lieberman had to correct him to change it to Iranians are training extremists, not Al Qaeda.

McCain is no good on the economy AND no good on foriegn policy. The man is just to old to handle the pressure. He would be a disastor as President.

[Drocket]

Ix-nay on Al aeda-Qay. Iran-ay is the enemy du our-jay.

[ViolaLee]

Is that what they were trying to do?

All I know is, I really can't believe anything that comes outta McCain's mouth. I think he's too old and too confused and under too much stress for his 72 year old brain and body. Being President is hard work, as Bush likes to say. heh heh heh.

[ECW]

McCain has become the CiC already: C*****'s Idiot Clone.

Everything that he stood for that made him a viable attractive candidate eight years ago has changed into a clone of the idiot already at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Four more years of the disaster of the last eight years is not what we need.

[ViolaLee]

What's this word? C*****'s

I can't unscramble that one.

I wish we could type the words we want to, like grownups do.

Edit - Cheney????

That's not allowed here?

Hmmm.....confusion sets in. Cheney's - testing.

[ViolaLee]

Four more years of the disaster of the last eight years is not what we need.
I'm not sure we could survive it. We are going down the tubes as we type.

[Drocket]

Making a guess, but Chimpy?

Guess not.

[ViolaLee]

Oh I thought it was an auto correct feature.

[Trish]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6GBdyws5YU



John McCain said it's common knowledge that Al Qaeda is receiving training from Iran and going into Iraq.

Lieberman had to correct him to change it to Iranians are training extremists, not Al Qaeda.

McCain is no good on the economy AND no good on foriegn policy. The man is just to old to handle the pressure. He would be a disastor as President.


People misspeak - even presidential candidates misspeak. Senator McCain isn't alone in that respect and age isn't the cause. Your own candidate has screwed up and made misstatements and has even decried the "trivialization of politics" where "it is all about who makes a gaffe."

Unless one is willing to hold all candidates to the same standard of perfection in speech, it's rather declasse to deride Senator McCann for a very human imperfection.

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2007/02/sweet_column_obama_regrets_was.html

[Truth_and_Power]

Is that what they were trying to do?

All I know is, I really can't believe anything that comes outta McCain's mouth. I think he's too old and too confused and under too much stress for his 72 year old brain and body. Being President is hard work, as Bush likes to say. heh heh heh.


So lets get this straight.. bush lies because he's stupid and mccain lies because he's old and cheney lies because he's evil/greedy. Funny how all their lies seem to work together nicely, almost like it's a purposeful p.r. campaign that could care less about the truth. Good thing the american people are too stupid to know the difference.

[ECW]

People misspeak - even presidential candidates misspeak. Senator McCain isn't alone in that respect and age isn't the cause. Your own candidate has screwed up and made misstatements and has even decried the "trivialization of politics" where "it is all about who makes a gaffe."

Unless one is willing to hold all candidates to the same standard of perfection in speech, it's rather declasse to deride Senator McCann for a very human imperfection.

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2007/02/sweet_column_obama_regrets_was.html


People do misspeak but not three times in the course of just a couple of days unless they had bogus information to begin with. McCain is so clueless as far as Iraq goes that he will say anything to get on the good side of the neocon cabal that got us into this quagmire and he will do anything to stay there which includes repeating inaccurate information to a public that he thinks isn't paying close attention to the war. Any person who proclaims we will be in Iraq for 100 years in spite of the fact that the Iraqis don't want us there will try and tell us that Sunni al-Qaeda fighters are being trained in Shia Iran just to keep the drums of war beating loud enough to win the White House. Funny you don't see that.

[Trish]

People misspeak - even presidential candidates misspeak. Senator McCain isn't alone in that respect and age isn't the cause. Your own candidate has screwed up and made misstatements and has even decried the "trivialization of politics" where "it is all about who makes a gaffe."

Unless one is willing to hold all candidates to the same standard of perfection in speech, it's rather declasse to deride Senator McCann for a very human imperfection.

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2007/02/sweet_column_obama_regrets_was.html


People do misspeak but not three times in the course of just a couple of days unless they had bogus information to begin with. McCain is so clueless as far as Iraq goes that he will say anything to get on the good side of the neocon cabal that got us into this quagmire and he will do anything to stay there which includes repeating inaccurate information to a public that he thinks isn't paying close attention to the war. Any person who proclaims we will be in Iraq for 100 years in spite of the fact that the Iraqis don't want us there will try and tell us that Sunni al-Qaeda fighters are being trained in Shia Iran just to keep the drums of war beating loud enough to win the White House. Funny you don't see that.



I wouldn't exactly call Senator McCain clueless about Iraq. He was way ahead of the curve in calling for increased troop levels in Iraq - a strategy we now see as one that should have been instigated MUCH sooner. As for being in Iraq for 100 years, I don't really see that as being all that far fetched or unrealistic. WWII ended over 60 years ago and we are "still IN" Japan, Germany, and Italy. Hostilities ceased in Korea over 50 years ago and we are "still IN" Korea along the DMZ. I suspect that a similar type US presence is what is expected in Iraq - not continuing war. As for "the Iraqis" not wanting us there, I don't think that's a completely accurate statement. From what I've read and heard, a more accurate statement would be "some" Iraqis don't want us there.

Despite Senator McCain's misstatement, I think he has a pretty clear view of Iraq. It's one of the issues on which I agree with him despite my disagreement in other areas.

[Wndrtch]

Is that what they were trying to do?

All I know is, I really can't believe anything that comes outta McCain's mouth. I think he's too old and too confused and under too much stress for his 72 year old brain and body. Being President is hard work, as Bush likes to say. heh heh heh.


"How do you know when a Politician is lying..."

So, how do you square with Hillary (expert liar for the last 35 years) and Obama (caught telling the Canadians to ignor his ant-NAFTA rhetoric)? Obama couldn't even be truthful about hearing rascists slurs from his friend, confidant, and spiritual adviser Rev Wright, dispite the vide that the good Rev sells with that crap on it!

Obama:
" I VEVER heard such things from my paster. Had I , I would have left"

Mr. Doe:
"But, Mr. Obama sir, the Rev has been selling a video tape for years, with anti-American, anti-white rhetoric, how could you NOT know he said those things if you were in the parish every week?"

Obama:
"Oh, THAT rhetoric. Well er...yes, I have heard that, but EVERYBODY is a rascist including my Grandmother, so it's ok that my spiritual adviser is a flamming rascists. Sing with me now!"

"Kum-bye-ya, oh lord, Kum-bye-ya...."

[jafar00]

People misspeak - even presidential candidates misspeak. Senator McCain isn't alone in that respect and age isn't the cause.

Misspeak? That was just a bit specific to be misspeak. Expressing a strong belief that Iran and Al Qaeda have suddenly become friends and are training in Iran shows how out of touch this idiot is with world affairs.

[Truth_and_Power]

People misspeak - even presidential candidates misspeak. Senator McCain isn't alone in that respect and age isn't the cause.

Misspeak? That was just a bit specific to be misspeak. Expressing a strong belief that Iran and Al Qaeda have suddenly become friends and are training in Iran shows how out of touch this idiot is with world affairs.


Why do we keep giving these guys a break and pretending they're too dumb to know what they're doing? They are putting the crosshairs on iran and they will attribute original sin, pearl harbor, and the holocaust to them if that's what it takes. Then you guys will call it "an honest mistake"..

[Wndrtch]

People misspeak - even presidential candidates misspeak. Senator McCain isn't alone in that respect and age isn't the cause.

Misspeak? That was just a bit specific to be misspeak. Expressing a strong belief that Iran and Al Qaeda have suddenly become friends and are training in Iran shows how out of touch this idiot is with world affairs.


AQ and "Iran" are oppsoite factions, aren't they? Inbetween killing Westerners, secular Muslims, and Jews, don't they go after each other from time to time?

By the way, just because he misspoke and said AQ, that doesn;t take away the fact that Iran IS training fighters to attack US soldiers in Iraq, and supplying them with the equipment to do it.

[December]

McCain caught LYING again! Back tracks from key primary pledge of NO NEW TAXES!

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/03/03/mccain-ss



John McCain said it's common knowledge that Al Qaeda is receiving training from Iran and going into Iraq.

Lieberman had to correct him to change it to Iranians are training extremists, not Al Qaeda.


It's just a part of Washington culture to repeat everything the boss is saying....

[brien]

ECW wrote:
McCain is so clueless as far as Iraq goes that he will say anything to get on the good side of the neocon cabal that got us into this quagmire and he will do anything to stay there which includes repeating inaccurate information to a public that he thinks isn't paying close attention to the war


Even though I disagree with him, at least McCain is honest with regard to Iraq.

Why don't you people ever want to talk SUBSTANCE when it comes to your candidates and the candidates of your opponents.

Some of you are duped when it comes to Obama and Iraq. Whereas, at least John McCain tells you straight up, what he believes about Iraq, while Obama dances around the occupation, and then almost downright lies when he tells you he will withdraw the troops from Iraq.

Here is his loophole large enpough to drive the artillery and tanks through:

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/#bring-home

He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.

Now what does this mean? Well let's look at protecting diplomats:

A few brigades to protect the US Embassy. Then a few divisions to secure the airport. Then a few more to secure the roads to and from the airport. Then a few divisions to secure the Green Zone.

Hmmmmmm, troop withdrawal eh? :ponder: Sure..

Now let's look at the implication for the rest of his loophole.

Al Qaeda already has many bases located in Iraq. So how many divisions will it take to carry out "targeted strikes" against those bases? Who knows, because we don't know how many bases there are, but we do know there are many of them. So, this will require the intelligence, and many more divisions, to fullfill what Obama is promising in his platform. Also, when Obama begins attacking Al Qaeda bases, they certainly will retalliate, and this will draw even more US troops into these battles. Also Al Qaeda probably has bases in Iran, what will he do when they attack US troops and then scurry back across the border into Iran? How will he deal with this scenario?

So tell me now, how is this disengagement from Iraq. In fact, if Obama begins to remove troops like he promises, it will probably endanger the remaining troops and result in an overall increase in casualties in Iraq. You see, Obama is trying to do it half assed and that will only result in disaster. Either he withdraws all Americans and American forces, or he will be forced to remain in Iraq, no matter what his platform says. His rhetoric on this issue is only surpassed by his dishonesty toward the commitment to Iraq. Once again, this is the difference between Obamas rhetoric and realpolitik.

Therefore, I don't call his plan disengagement at all. In fact, what he is proposing will take as many troops as we have there now, if not probably more, once he begins attacking the Al Qaeda bases.:shock:

So those of you who believe Obama will get the US out of Iraq are either daydreaming, drinking Obama's Koolaid, or just plain ignoring the facts of "realpolitik". Either way, forget about Iraq, it is an issue that is off the table unless Obama changes his platform to mean total unconditional withdrawal.

[Wndrtch]

Why don't you people ever want to talk SUBSTANCE when it comes to your candidates and the candidates of your opponents.

Some of you are duped when it comes to Obama and Iraq. Whereas, at least John McCain tells you straight up, what he believes about Iraq, while Obama dances around the occupation, and then almost downright lies when he tells you he will withdraw the troops from Iraq.

Here is his loophole large enpough to drive the artillery and tanks through:

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/#bring-home

He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.

Now what does this mean? Well let's look at protecting diplomats:

A few brigades to protect the US Embassy. Then a few divisions to secure the airport. Then a few more to secure the roads to and from the airport. Then a few divisions to secure the Green Zone.

Hmmmmmm, troop withdrawal eh? :ponder: Sure..

Now let's look at the implication for the rest of his loophole.

Al Qaeda already has many bases located in Iraq. So how many divisions will it take to carry out "targeted strikes" against those bases? Who knows, because we don't know how many bases there are, but we do know there are many of them. So, this will require the intelligence, and many more divisions, to fullfill what Obama is promising in his platform. Also, when Obama begins attacking Al Qaeda bases, they certainly will retalliate, and this will draw even more US troops into these battles. Also Al Qaeda probably has bases in Iran, what will he do when they attack US troops and then scurry back across the border into Iran? How will he deal with this scenario?

So tell me now, how is this disengagement from Iraq. In fact, if Obama begins to remove troops like he promises, it will probably endanger the remaining troops and result in an overall increase in casualties in Iraq. You see, Obama is trying to do it half assed and that will only result in disaster. Either he withdraws all Americans and American forces, or he will be forced to remain in Iraq, no matter what his platform says. His rhetoric on this issue is only surpassed by his dishonesty toward the commitment to Iraq. Once again, this is the difference between Obamas rhetoric and realpolitik.

Therefore, I don't call his plan disengagement at all. In fact, what he is proposing will take as many troops as we have there now, if not probably more, once he begins attacking the Al Qaeda bases.:shock:

So those of you who believe Obama will get the US out of Iraq are either daydreaming, drinking Obama's Koolaid, or just plain ignoring the facts of "realpolitik". Either way, forget about Iraq, it is an issue that is off the table unless Obama changes his platform to mean total unconditional withdrawal.


Like an amature politician, he's trying to have it both ways.

On the one hand, he has to be anti-war in order to win the never-ending Dem primary, yet knows that a total withdrawal will be disasterous.

But that's ok. He already said not to put much stock in what he says on the campaign trail.

[December]

John McCain is qualified to be a night security guard at the hospital... But he is running for president...

GOD HELP US!.....

McCain Laughs, Sings Bomb Iran

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-zoPgv_nYg

[ViolaLee]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6GBdyws5YU



John McCain said it's common knowledge that Al Qaeda is receiving training from Iran and going into Iraq.

Lieberman had to correct him to change it to Iranians are training extremists, not Al Qaeda.

McCain is no good on the economy AND no good on foriegn policy. The man is just to old to handle the pressure. He would be a disastor as President.


People misspeak - even presidential candidates misspeak. Senator McCain isn't alone in that respect and age isn't the cause. Your own candidate has screwed up and made misstatements and has even decried the "trivialization of politics" where "it is all about who makes a gaffe."

Unless one is willing to hold all candidates to the same standard of perfection in speech, it's rather declasse to deride Senator McCann for a very human imperfection.

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2007/02/sweet_column_obama_regrets_was.html


Isn't it more than just mispeaking when he doesn't know the difference between SUNNI Al Qaeda and SHIA Iran?

[Trish]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6GBdyws5YU



John McCain said it's common knowledge that Al Qaeda is receiving training from Iran and going into Iraq.

Lieberman had to correct him to change it to Iranians are training extremists, not Al Qaeda.

McCain is no good on the economy AND no good on foriegn policy. The man is just to old to handle the pressure. He would be a disastor as President.


People misspeak - even presidential candidates misspeak. Senator McCain isn't alone in that respect and age isn't the cause. Your own candidate has screwed up and made misstatements and has even decried the "trivialization of politics" where "it is all about who makes a gaffe."

Unless one is willing to hold all candidates to the same standard of perfection in speech, it's rather declasse to deride Senator McCann for a very human imperfection.

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2007/02/sweet_column_obama_regrets_was.html


Isn't it more than just mispeaking when he doesn't know the difference between SUNNI Al Qaeda and SHIA Iran?



Probably, if that was what happened - but it wasn't in this instance. The Senator was speaking about his belief that pulling out of Iraq too quickly would be a major mistake.

"it just becomes so palpably clear what a mistake it would be if the United States precipitously withdrew our forces," McCain told reporters in neighboring Jordan, before moving on to Israel.
"The victors in that (pullout) would be the extremists, and America would lose its credibility," he said. "Al-Qaida and the Iranian extremists would be the winners." McCain was a strong supporter of the 2003 invasion of Iraq and U.S. President George W. Bush's troop increase last year, which has helped reduce violence in the country.
"We are succeeding, but we still have a long way to go," he warned Tuesday. "Al-Qaida is on the run, they're not defeated."

Senator McCain was speaking about Al-Qaida and Islamic extremists in his comments. Two separate entities with extensively similar aims, ideals, and methods. The entirety of the Senator's remarks make it very clear that his comment was a misstatement, a simple inadvertent substitution of one "name" in place of another. It was a slip of the tongue, a gaffe, nothing more.

[Truth_and_Power]

You feel sure that their goals are the same, or maybe you just mean the very short term goals of 'fighting us' and those we support?

The differences in their goals determine whether a foreign policy can solve problems without violence. Now that we're talking about iran, we're 100% talking about doing the same thing we've done in iraq. Anyone have any other ideas about how a war with iran is supposed to end in our plans? Is the longer term plan to pave a road 'round the middle east till everything is democratized, or are we just gonna fight 'em till they stop?

I think it's ridiculous from a thinking person's perspective to not have the answers to these questions during a presidential election. There is no way they are running this empire without a 5, 10, 20 year plan. But it is not shared with the public and any issues the candidates address in their campaigns is a 1,2,3 year plan. Am I overestimating our government and really we just do whatever seems like a good idea year after year, shooting for "status quo or better"?

[lily]

Now what does this mean? Well let's look at protecting diplomats:

A few brigades to protect the US Embassy. Then a few divisions to secure the airport. Then a few more to secure the roads to and from the airport. Then a few divisions to secure the Green Zone.

Hmmmmmm, troop withdrawal eh? :ponder: Sure..

Now let's look at the implication for the rest of his loophole.

Al Qaeda already has many bases located in Iraq. So how many divisions will it take to carry out "targeted strikes" against those bases? Who knows, because we don't know how many bases there are, but we do know there are many of them. So, this will require the intelligence, and many more divisions, to fullfill what Obama is promising in his platform. Also, when Obama begins attacking Al Qaeda bases, they certainly will retalliate, and this will draw even more US troops into these battles. Also Al Qaeda probably has bases in Iran, what will he do when they attack US troops and then scurry back across the border into Iran? How will he deal with this scenario?

I'm not Obama.........but can I take a crack at this? We were told yesterday, by Bush that there now are 100,000 trained Iraqi soldiers. So........I say let them do the fighting, while our soldiers do what Obama is suggesting.

No one, and that includes Obama is saying all troops will leave Iraq immediately.......but I kind of like the stand up thing........I've been waiting for it now for 5 years...........oh and for the record......I'm also in favor of the Iraqis re-building their country......nothing gives you more pride than saying I did that........and that includes doing the fighting.

[apdst]

So, NONE of the weapons and training that Iran is providing is benefitting AQI? I find that hard to believe.

[4Reaganomics]

Iran supports Obama, how could they be associated with aiding AQ apdst? I'm shocked at your assertion

[Trish]

You feel sure that their goals are the same, or maybe you just mean the very short term goals of 'fighting us' and those we support?

The differences in their goals determine whether a foreign policy can solve problems without violence. Now that we're talking about iran, we're 100% talking about doing the same thing we've done in iraq. Anyone have any other ideas about how a war with iran is supposed to end in our plans? Is the longer term plan to pave a road 'round the middle east till everything is democratized, or are we just gonna fight 'em till they stop?

I think it's ridiculous from a thinking person's perspective to not have the answers to these questions during a presidential election. There is no way they are running this empire without a 5, 10, 20 year plan. But it is not shared with the public and any issues the candidates address in their campaigns is a 1,2,3 year plan. Am I overestimating our government and really we just do whatever seems like a good idea year after year, shooting for "status quo or better"?


My comment was, "Two separate entities with extensively similar aims, ideals, and methods." All Islamic extremist organizations aren't AQ, but AQ is an Islamic extremist organization in the same manner as all flowers aren't roses, but roses are flowers. The commonalities outweigh the distinctions.

As to a war in Iran, that's been bandied about for at least the past two years as an "imminent" event - an event that just doesn't seem to be materializing despite the repeated assertions that this administration is pushing for such. If we're going to equate Iraq with Iran it's important to remember that Saddam had over 12 years to avoid war. The international community will continue to deal with Iran unless and until Iran makes it impossible to do so. The onus is Iran's.

[ECW]

As for "the Iraqis" not wanting us there, I don't think that's a completely accurate statement. From what I've read and heard, a more accurate statement would be "some" Iraqis don't want us there.


No. 2/3rds of Iraqis don't want us there. That's more than just "some." (http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Seven_out_of_10_Iraqis_want_0317.html) 2/3rds say get the hell out. If we had a leader who's ego wasn't so tied up in macho posturing, we would already be on our way out. Hopefully President Obama will do what Bush at 1600 could not manage to do despite all his "hard work."

Please use proper names

[apdst]

there now are 100,000 trained Iraqi soldiers. So........I say let them do the fighting,

There are more and more Iraqi troops joining the fight everyday. But, common sense should show the danger of turning the Iraqi Army lose, too soon.

[Elrathin]

When they stand up, we'll stand down. Time for them to stand up and we go.

[Trish]

As for "the Iraqis" not wanting us there, I don't think that's a completely accurate statement. From what I've read and heard, a more accurate statement would be "some" Iraqis don't want us there.


No. 2/3rds of Iraqis don't want us there. That's more than just "some." (http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Seven_out_of_10_Iraqis_want_0317.html) 2/3rds say get the hell out. If we had a leader who's ego wasn't so tied up in macho posturing, we would already be on our way out. Hopefully President Obama will do what the monkeyhead at 1600 could not manage to do despite all his "hard work."


The term "the Iraqis" implies a totality. The term "some Iraqis" implies a portion. My statement that "some Iraqis" don't want us in Iraq was more accurate even if your statement of "2/3rds say get the hell out" is correct.

Thanks for the link. I found the information supplied there very uplifting in many ways.

[Elrathin]

Trish I won't argue semantics with you, but let me break it down for you. There are MANY people (Some on this very board) that feel our war in Iraq is just because it is drawing terrorists to Iraq and they say it's better that we fight them in Iraq rather than fight them here in the U.S.

Now, if you are a citizen of Iraq and you know there are American's that don't mind terrorists coming to Iraq because the U.S. military is fighting them in your country rather than their own, would you support that? I think not.

Now with that said, you know as well as I do the current government of Iraq wants our military there because they know it's a death sentence for them if we leave. So does the Iraq government have their own personal interests at the highest priority or the citizen's?

[Trish]

Trish I won't argue semantics with you, but let me break it down for you. There are MANY people (Some on this very board) that feel our war in Iraq is just because it is drawing terrorists to Iraq and they say it's better that we fight them in Iraq rather than fight them here in the U.S.

Now, if you are a citizen of Iraq and you know there are American's that don't mind terrorists coming to Iraq because the U.S. military is fighting them in your country rather than their own, would you support that? I think not.

Now with that said, you know as well as I do the current government of Iraq wants our military there because they know it's a death sentence for them if we leave. So does the Iraq government have their own personal interests at the highest priority or the citizen's?


I have no difficultly in accepting that there are some Iraqis, even many Iraqis, that do not want us in Iraq and the reasons for such cover a wide spectrum just as there are some Iraqis, perhaps many Iraqis that do want us there. I also have no problem in accepting that Iraqi government officials have many reasons for wanting the US to stay and those reasons cover a wide spectum as well and not all the reasons are selfless.

I do have a big problem with being deliberately inaccurate. There is so much wrong information, half-truths, innuendo, rumors, propoganda, etc. spread around regarding the war (from every side of the issue) that accepting inaccuracies just keeps the waters muddy. Regardless of how one feels about the war, whether we should have been there in the first place, whether we should stay or get out, I just don't happen to think that muddy waters do any of us any favors. Perhaps it is a matter of semantics, but I just happen to believe with every fiber of my being that especially in matters such as war which is literally life and death, we should all be as fully accurate as possible. After all - inaccurate information got into this war 5 years ago didn't it? Perhaps if more attention had been paid to accuracy back then, none of us would be having this debate now.

[Truth_and_Power]

Iran supports Obama, how could they be associated with aiding AQ apdst? I'm shocked at your assertion


Wow it's like two logical fallacies followed by sarcasm.

[4Reaganomics]

Logic

Obama is a good honest America loving guy

Iran supports him so they must be good America loving guys

How could a good America loving guy like Iran support Al Qaeda? I mean it is just out of their character.

[Elrathin]

I just don't happen to think that muddy waters do any of us any favors. Perhaps it is a matter of semantics, but I just happen to believe with every fiber of my being that especially in matters such as war which is literally life and death, we should all be as fully accurate as possible. After all - inaccurate information got into this war 5 years ago didn't it? Perhaps if more attention had been paid to accuracy back then, none of us would be having this debate now.


So since you seem to be Open Minded, what do you think are sources that show the true measures of Iraq then?

[Trish]

I just don't happen to think that muddy waters do any of us any favors. Perhaps it is a matter of semantics, but I just happen to believe with every fiber of my being that especially in matters such as war which is literally life and death, we should all be as fully accurate as possible. After all - inaccurate information got into this war 5 years ago didn't it? Perhaps if more attention had been paid to accuracy back then, none of us would be having this debate now.


So since you seem to be Open Minded, what do you think are sources that show the true measures of Iraq then?


Actually, I think the article of ECW's link summed up the situation rather well when it stated that the Iraqi attitudes were mixed and Iraqi opinions varied.

[lily]

There are more and more Iraqi troops joining the fight everyday. But, common sense should show the danger of turning the Iraqi Army lose, too soon.



I don't know........I don't think 5 years of training it too soon. I think it's just about right to start replacing our young men with their young men. We can finally do the cushy jobs. We'll still be there to lend them a hand if they need it........but we can fight for their freedom until the cows come home, but until they want it more than we want it for them, we're not going to get anywhere.

I've already stated, when one of our soldiers leave, replace him with an Iraqi.......only makes sense to me.

[ECW]

Funny how they can kill people when they are part of the death squads or the militia but when they are in the army, somehow, they can't do the job or get the job done.

We are being played and have been for five years. We arm both sides and then wonder why they are still killing each other. We Surge our troops to bring some peace for the government to do their jobs over there and they go on vacation and refuse to do anything when they come back. Out of 18 benchmarks, only one was met six months ago and we have people like McCain telling us that we will be there for 100 years and then beats the fear mongering war drums trying to scare us into buying his schtick (which is identical to the schtick that Connecticut George sold us in 2004).

Sorry. I'm not buying it. McCain is clearly not qualified to be president.

[Elrathin]

How could a good America loving guy like Iran support Al Qaeda? I mean it is just out of their character.


So are you actually trying to make a connection now that Obama supports Al-Qaeda?

[Wndrtch]

Funny how they can kill people when they are part of the death squads or the militia but when they are in the army, somehow, they can't do the job or get the job done.

We are being played and have been for five years. We arm both sides and then wonder why they are still killing each other. We Surge our troops to bring some peace for the government to do their jobs over there and they go on vacation and refuse to do anything when they come back. Out of 18 benchmarks, only one was met six months ago and we have people like McCain telling us that we will be there for 100 years and then beats the fear mongering war drums trying to scare us into buying his schtick (which is identical to the schtick that Connecticut George sold us in 2004).

Sorry. I'm not buying it. McCain is clearly not qualified to be president.


So, how long SHOULD it take to establish a working government? It took our Founders 20 years to get the Constitution under wraps, then another 10-20 years to get the Government working right.

As far as McCain's assesment, why are you so surprised? We still have troops in Europe after WWII. We still have troops in Kosovo and Bosnia after 10-15 years. McCain's comment was RESPONSIBLE, not irrational.

As far as qualifications go, what are Hillary's and Obama's
"qualifications"?

Give me a break! :unreal:

[ECW]

Comparing the political war we fought for our independence and the religious war that is currently being waged in Iraq is like comparing eggs and eggplants. Give me a break.

Don't forget, the political war (to remove Hussein) was over some five years ago. It's the "peace" that we cannot find after the political war because of the religious war that is now being waged. It's not our place, as conservatives used to say, to be the policeman of the world. For once, I agree.

[brien]

No one, and that includes Obama is saying all troops will leave Iraq immediately.......but I kind of like the stand up thing........I've been waiting for it now for 5 years...........oh and for the record......I'm also in favor of the Iraqis re-building their country......nothing gives you more pride than saying I did that........and that includes doing the fighting.

I fully agree but I don't fall for either Hillary's or Obama's political doublespeak. I find it very disingenuous for both those candidates to be duping the public into believing they will totally disengage from Iraq immediately. And I certainly don't trust GWB when he says 100,000 Iraqi troops are ready to do the job over there. But let's say it is true. This would be all the more reason to fully disengage the US from Iraq beginning today. But what do we see? The surge.

Last time I looked the "surge" meant increasing troops and not depending upon the Iraqis to take up the slack. But we will see.

All three candidates are not addressing Afghanistan either. As long as the US remains fighting there, leaving Iraq won't make a bit of difference. The US needs to totally leave the ME. Let the UN work the problems out.

[ECW]

All three candidates are not addressing Afghanistan either. As long as the US remains fighting there, leaving Iraq won't make a bit of difference. The US needs to totally leave the ME. Let the UN work the problems out.


Actually, Obama has addressed Afghanistan a number of times in his stump speeches and in other forums but the press has not given it wide-spread coverage.

I agree that the US needs to leave the region but the Arab League would be a better choice IMO to settle the religious war ongoing there.

[piratemonkey]

I fully agree but I don't fall for either Hillary's or Obama's political doublespeak. I find it very disingenuous for both those candidates to be duping the public into believing they will totally disengage from Iraq immediately.

Typical conservative strawman.

Quote for us where either candidate said they "will totally disengage from Iraq immediately."

[Wndrtch]

Comparing the political war we fought for our independence and the religious war that is currently being waged in Iraq is like comparing eggs and eggplants. Give me a break.

Don't forget, the political war (to remove Hussein) was over some five years ago. It's the "peace" that we cannot find after the political war because of the religious war that is now being waged. It's not our place, as conservatives used to say, to be the policeman of the world. For once, I agree.


Try sticking to the point please, which WAS in regards to the length of time it takes to create a working democracy. I already know you examplify my sig-line. Try responding to my questions of how long should it take to make a working Democratic Government. We can talk about your sneakers later.

[piratemonkey]

So, how long SHOULD it take to establish a working government? It took our Founders 20 years to get the Constitution under wraps, then another 10-20 years to get the Government working right.


Then did Rumsfeld lie when he said this?


It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months.

[Wndrtch]

So, how long SHOULD it take to establish a working government? It took our Founders 20 years to get the Constitution under wraps, then another 10-20 years to get the Government working right.


Then did Rumsfeld lie when he said this?


It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months.


I believe that was in reference to the initial push (Shock & Awe), and not in response to the reconstruction. The military base we're building over there, was always part of the plan, so we did intend to "be there" for a while. We just didn't expect constant combat the entire time.

[ECW]

Try sticking to the point please, which WAS in regards to the length of time it takes to create a working democracy... Try responding to my questions of how long should it take to make a working Democratic Government.

In case you hadn't noticed, there is a working democracy there. There have been three highly touted elections, a parliament seated and in place, and local authorities taking care of civil matters. Trouble is there is a sectarian war raging all around them and no one really knows who is out to get who but people are dying everyday as a result. The national government, full of Shia politicians, are looking out for their own and no one else and that is the source of most of Iraq's ailments. Our government is supporting those Shia politicians who are not making any progress towards any kind of accommodation with the minority Sunni populace (or with the Kurds for that matter) and the Sunni are responding with violence.

In short, the government IS working. It is working to suppress the Sunni and our response is to arm the Sunni as well, further escalating the level of violence. Time for us to stop being an enabler and get out of country. Our brave troops are not worthy of dying for this mockery.


We can talk about your sneakers later.

Sorry, dude. You may be wearing "sneakers" but all I have is some size ten Dr. Martens 8855IGZ - Black Industrial Grizzly - workboots, the better workboot to stomp a mud hole in my favorite neocons with.

I already know you examplify my sig-line.

Funny. I can say the same thing about you with regards to my signature.