McCain: a Maverick no longer - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 01-18-2007, 10:49 PM   #16
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 04:57 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Ormus

The GOP is quickly becoming the party of dinosaurs and cavemen.
Optimistic thinking. Unfortunately the GOP is doing a great job attracting young hateful and bigoted men, if they start running we're in for a very bumpy ride.
__________________

__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 01-18-2007, 11:06 PM   #17
War Child
 
Ormus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Frontios
Posts: 758
Local Time: 06:57 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar
Optimistic thinking. Unfortunately the GOP is doing a great job attracting young hateful and bigoted men, if they start running we're in for a very bumpy ride.
Attracting young, hateful, and bigoted men will mean repulsing moderate independents who ultimately determine the results of every election.
__________________

__________________
Ormus is offline  
Old 01-18-2007, 11:13 PM   #18
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 05:57 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


Unlike candidates in the Democratic party, McCain is sticking to what he knows is best for the country. Clinton, Edwards, and certainly Obama, don't even touch McCain when it comes to knowing and understanding US National Security interest and Foreign Policy. The Democratic candidates are concerned about getting votes, McCain is concerned about having the best policy for the country in National Security, something he has dedicated his life to.

McCain's incredible record of service to this country is something that the general republic will soon be reminded of and will contrast significantly with the Democratic opposition and will indeed impact peoples decisions on who to vote for in November 2008.

yes, the Iraq Debacle has certainly beeen in the best interests of the country.

let's all say that with a straight face, like these conservatives:

[q]Iraq is a "Black Hole" for Republicans

From the latest Evans-Novak Political Report: "President George W. Bush's attempt to revitalize his Iraq War policy has been a political failure. His 'surge' in troops won no converts, and all efforts now are based on attempting to prevent a negative resolution from being passed in the Senate."

"The gloom pervading the Republican Party cannot be exaggerated. The long-range GOP outlook for 2008 is grim. The consensus is that U.S. troops must be off the ground of Iraq by next year to prevent an electoral catastrophe in the next election."

"Iraq, one of Bush's top political advisers now notes, is a black hole for the Republican Party. A nationally prominent Republican pollster reported confidentially on Capitol Hill after the President's speech that if U.S. boots are still on the ground in Iraq and U.S. blood is still being spilled there at the end of the year, the GOP disaster in 2008 will eclipse 2006."[/q]


McCain will be forever tied to Iraq, and to the greatest moral failure of the United States since Vietnam: we had a moral responsibility to the thousands of Iraqis murdered under U.S. occupation. the laws of warefare tell us that an occupying army is responsible for the basic securiety of hte population under its care.

McCain helped break Iraq. McCain owns Iraq, not as much as Bush, but as much as any Republican in the Republican party. he saw the violence grow into one of the most brutal civil wars in modern history that saw 34,000 (at least) Iraqis die in 2006 alone.

McCain will bear the burden of what Iraq has done to the United Statesin the minds of the rest of the world, and not least in the Muslim world.

never forget: McCain voted to authorize torutre. he supported men like Bush, Rumsfeld, and Cheney who have led us into the greatest foreign policy debacle since Vietnam (so say his fellow Republicans).

so sad that a man with such an honerable past has pissed it all away.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 01-18-2007, 11:27 PM   #19
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 04:57 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Ormus


Attracting young, hateful, and bigoted men will mean repulsing moderate independents who ultimately determine the results of every election.
Perhaps...
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 01-19-2007, 04:33 AM   #20
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 10:57 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511



yes, the Iraq Debacle has certainly beeen in the best interests of the country.

let's all say that with a straight face, like these conservatives:

[q]Iraq is a "Black Hole" for Republicans

From the latest Evans-Novak Political Report: "President George W. Bush's attempt to revitalize his Iraq War policy has been a political failure. His 'surge' in troops won no converts, and all efforts now are based on attempting to prevent a negative resolution from being passed in the Senate."

"The gloom pervading the Republican Party cannot be exaggerated. The long-range GOP outlook for 2008 is grim. The consensus is that U.S. troops must be off the ground of Iraq by next year to prevent an electoral catastrophe in the next election."

"Iraq, one of Bush's top political advisers now notes, is a black hole for the Republican Party. A nationally prominent Republican pollster reported confidentially on Capitol Hill after the President's speech that if U.S. boots are still on the ground in Iraq and U.S. blood is still being spilled there at the end of the year, the GOP disaster in 2008 will eclipse 2006."[/q]


McCain will be forever tied to Iraq, and to the greatest moral failure of the United States since Vietnam: we had a moral responsibility to the thousands of Iraqis murdered under U.S. occupation. the laws of warefare tell us that an occupying army is responsible for the basic securiety of hte population under its care.

McCain helped break Iraq. McCain owns Iraq, not as much as Bush, but as much as any Republican in the Republican party. he saw the violence grow into one of the most brutal civil wars in modern history that saw 34,000 (at least) Iraqis die in 2006 alone.

McCain will bear the burden of what Iraq has done to the United Statesin the minds of the rest of the world, and not least in the Muslim world.

never forget: McCain voted to authorize torutre. he supported men like Bush, Rumsfeld, and Cheney who have led us into the greatest foreign policy debacle since Vietnam (so say his fellow Republicans).

so sad that a man with such an honerable past has pissed it all away.

Ah yes, please explain how the United States fundamental security needs in the Persian Gulf would be more secure with Saddam still in power than it is now? Explain, how after the deaths of 1.7 million people from multiple wars, Iraqi's and their neighbors would be safer with Saddam in power? Yes, lets keep the leader who used WMD more times than any other leader in history, who was in violation of 17 UN Security Council Resolutions , the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire, lets keep that person in power. We'd all be safer right? I mean, when the United States is forced to deploy a half a million troops in under a few months to prevent the seizure and sabotage of the planets energy supply, thats a good thing? We'd want to repeat that whole process instead of preventing it, right?


Iraq is not in a Civil War yet, and the violence in Iraq pales in comparison to the violence that was seen in Bosnia, Sudan, Congo, Afghanistan, and many other area's around the world. To put the violence in Iraq up with these other conflicts is simply ignorant. Far more Iraqi's were killed and slaughtered during multiple points during Saddam's time in power than have been killed in the past four years. Yet, this is the man Mr. Obama and several Democrats would have prefered to keep in power.

The moral failure of Vietnam is found in those that pushed for and successfully brought about the abandonment of that country after the United States and South Vietnamese had been successful in defeating the insurgency within the country as well as defending it from North Vietnamese invasions. The abandonment led to the slaughter and current imprisonment of South Vietnam. The Democrats are looking to repeat the process in Iraq.


No matter how you stack it, McCain is on the right side of history, because no one in the future will be able to successfully argue that a man like Saddam should have remained in power after everything he had done to Iraq and the region. But some people can't see that because they think the history of Iraq started in March 2003.

The Democrats now have the majority in congress, but their not going to do a damn thing, except offer up irrelevant resolutions and discussions to simply criticize the President. They will not present any sort of a viable alternative, nor will they cut off funding, making them seem essentially irrelevant.


McCain understands the United States fundamental security needs in the region and understands that the United States can't simply abandon Iraq like it did Vietnam. The Democrats will continue to be more concerned about their political prospects for 2008, rather than being concerned about the countries national security. They will continue to claim that the United States can simply walk away from Iraq without explaining who is going to replace coalition forces if their withdrawn so quickly. They will continue to make the bogus claim that we can just withdraw and have a reconciliation/peace conference and everything will fall into place. The ultimate contradiction of calling an Iraq a debacle but claiming the United States can withdraw its troops without endangering the stability of Iraq will continue.

Democrats will continue to support military operations in Afghanistan in the name of fighting terrorism, despite the fact that Al Quada is far more active in Iraq.

In Clinton, we have a relative national political novice who supported the invasion of Iraq and has tried hard to pretend to be a supporter of the military and national security, but is in the process of back tracking in order to preserve her previous untouchable pole position as the Democrats #1 candidate for 2008.

In Edwards, a strong candidate for the Democratic nomination in 2008 who supported the war like Clinton above, but has now "changed his mind", so he too can have a shot at the Democratic nomination where one has to get past the liberal/pacifist wing of the party.

Obama, even more of a novice than Clinton, with lots of Charisma but no substance. He is trying though, to find that middle ground that will satisfy the liberal/pacifist wing of the Democratic party without seeming like he is one of them. His latest is that were going to cap the number of troops in Iraq. When he thinks of Iraq, its about finding a way to oppose the President and find favor with the liberal wing of the Democratic party, its not about the best policy for bringing stability to Iraq and protecting long term US Security interest in the region.

McCain has dedicated most of his life to issues of national security. He was a Navy Pilot who had a good service record prior to his deployment to Vietnam where he served well. He was shot down and spent over 5 years in North Vietnamese prison. He understands torture in a way that few humans do. After his release from Vietnam, he served in congress and supported the Reagan defense build up, which provided weapons and training needed to rebuild the United States military from the condition it was in, in the late 70s as well as making it the strongest military in the history of the world which was demonstrated in the historically quick, and low casualty rate of the 1991 Desert Storm operation. He has spent his time in congress supporting the US military and sound US foreign policy. He has an incredible and distinguished record when it comes to US National Security going back half a century which stands in stark contrast to the above Democratic candidates. His idea's and views are based on what is best for the country, NOT what would best support his personal political future based on which ever way the current political wind is blowing.

If you value intelligence, experience, and someone who is willing to do the right thing, on the most important issues this country faces, regardless of how it effects their political fortunes, McCain is your man. A big contrast to the current field of leading Democratic candidates.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 01-19-2007, 08:41 AM   #21
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 05:57 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
[B]Ah yes, please explain how the United States fundamental security needs in the Persian Gulf would be more secure with Saddam still in power than it is now? Explain, how after the deaths of 1.7 million people from multiple wars, Iraqi's and their neighbors would be safer with Saddam in power? Yes, lets keep the leader who used WMD more times than any other leader in history, who was in violation of 17 UN Security Council Resolutions , the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire, lets keep that person in power. We'd all be safer right? I mean, when the United States is forced to deploy a half a million troops in under a few months to prevent the seizure and sabotage of the planets energy supply, thats a good thing? We'd want to repeat that whole process instead of preventing it, right?
yes, the NIE just TOTALLY agrees with you!

the US is now LESS SAFE due to the invasion of Iraq and the region is as unstable now as it has ever been with a nuclearizing Iran and growing fault lines between the Sunni and the Shia and very little progress in Israel/Palestine.

news flash: the Middle East is more than just Saddam Hussein.

news flash: simply because you don't support THE MANNER in which Saddam was removed in 2003 for the maximum benefit for the Republican political calendar (let's not forget the "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" bru-ha-ha, for that was always the real goal of the invasion), doesn't mean that you support Saddam Hussein. i know it's politically advantageous for you to try to draw up lines that say, either you support Bush or you're a Saddam lover, but such simplistic, nasty thinking has only ever come back to haunt the conservatives who conflate genuine national interest with their own poltiical agendas and timetables.

a dealing with Saddam Hussein was inevitable, but THE MANNER in which it was done in 2003 with maximum international outcry and no UN support and then followed up by the administration making virutally every mistake possible to make during the postwar -- starting with the disbanding of the Iraqi army to the ignorance of the role of sectarianis in Iraqi life to the absence of Americans on the ground who are fluent in Arabic to the idiotic execution of Saddam to the fact that Americans are essentially siding with the Shia in a larger Sunni/Shia regional conflict -- all this rests on McCain's shoulders.

and you know what else? the American people DO NOT agree with you! Bush's approval ratings remain in the 30's! he's hit new lows in some polls! he's only comparable to Nixon! the Democrats won in 2006 largely due to the administration's manifest incompetence in Iraq!

but soldier on! continue to praise everything that isn't an obvious defeat as a victory! the desperation is palpable.

especially when you don't understand what's going on in Iraq. this isn't a Democracy fighting for survival against Al-Qaeda jihadists. the Maliki government is little omre than a front for Shia militias. recent comments by Maliki express a clear desire to be given weapons and more training in order to unleash Shiite state-sanctified violence against SUnni insurgents. he want the US to continue to cleans Sunni "insurgents" in Baghdad. this is the US taking sides in an Arab civil war, and the smart money is on the US withdrawing to Kurdistan to manage the war from afar, remove the Western element in what is a sectarian ethnic conflict, and to focus the struggle in the Middle East from "Islam vs. America" to "Islam vs. Islam."


[q]Iraq is not in a Civil War yet, and the violence in Iraq pales in comparison to the violence that was seen in Bosnia, Sudan, Congo, Afghanistan, and many other area's around the world. To put the violence in Iraq up with these other conflicts is simply ignorant. Far more Iraqi's were killed and slaughtered during multiple points during Saddam's time in power than have been killed in the past four years. Yet, this is the man Mr. Obama and several Democrats would have prefered to keep in power.[/q]

tell that to the 1.5 MILLION refugees from Iraq. tell that to the 34,000 people who have been killed in 2006 alone.

and there are American troops on the ground trying to prevent this violence! and still we have unspeakable levels of violence (and i love the vague "and many other areas around the world").



[q]The moral failure of Vietnam is found in those that pushed for and successfully brought about the abandonment of that country after the United States and South Vietnamese had been successful in defeating the insurgency within the country as well as defending it from North Vietnamese invasions. The abandonment led to the slaughter and current imprisonment of South Vietnam. The Democrats are looking to repeat the process in Iraq.[/q]

the moral failure of Vietnam, like in Iraq, is an American political structure ignorant to history and culture. a continuous state of seige is not a victory.


[q]No matter how you stack it, McCain is on the right side of history, because no one in the future will be able to successfully argue that a man like Saddam should have remained in power after everything he had done to Iraq and the region. But some people can't see that because they think the history of Iraq started in March 2003.[/q]

and for some, it started in 1991 -- we forget what friends we were with Saddam when he opposed the Iranians.


[q]McCain understands the United States fundamental security needs in the region and understands that the United States can't simply abandon Iraq like it did Vietnam.[/q]

yes, and the American people are surely with him.

STING, if your arguments are so obviously compelling and so deserving of their smugness, then it's faily obvious you'd, you know, garner some support, that Bush wouldn't have the lowest sustained approval ratings of any president since Nixon, that McCain would be soaring on the back of your rhetoric.

but that hasn't happened. and it won't happen.

and McCain authorized torure. never forget that. he enabled this rhesus monkey of a president to detain any American citizen at any time as he sees fit.

lessons learned well from the Hanoi Hilton, natch.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 01-19-2007, 09:02 AM   #22
War Child
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: ann arbor mi
Posts: 935
Local Time: 06:57 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram
I lost respect for McCain during the 2000 primaries and he's done nothing to win it back since.

He was never the maverick people claim he is. He just managed to frame the discourse in such a way to convince people (through the media) that he's really independent minded. Bullshit, he's cut from the same cloth as the right. I wouldn't vote for him in a million years.
That's precisely how I'm feeling these days. I actually *did* vote for him back in 2000, here in MI, where independents can vote in either primary. So I was psyched to cast mine for McCain and against Bush. But then he goes and gives that speech he gave in 2004 at the Republican convention. That was evil. If someone 'made' him do a speech so that he would stand a chance at getting the GOP nod for next go 'round, that's one thing, but I think he's surely smart enough to have done one that wasn't so...so...evil.
I do believe he sincerely believes (or used to, anyway) that campaign finance reform is needed to get our system back to some form of actual democracy, so it'll be interesting to see how this all goes...

cheers!
__________________
ShellBeThere is offline  
Old 01-19-2007, 10:32 AM   #23
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 05:57 AM
and McCain has so many, many more problems than just Iraq. the more he fellates the Religious Right, the more independents will run screaming.

i respect McCain for at least not having his heart in the Christofascist wing of the Republican Party, yet he knows what he's got to do politically to get through the primaries ... is there anyone he won't get down on his knees for?

and people think Hillary calculates ...



[q]McCain to Make Amends With Dobson

Wednesday January 17, 2007 7:31 AM
AP Photo WX104
By JIM DAVENPORT
Associated Press Writer

COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) - Sen. John McCain said Tuesday he hopes to patch things up with conservative Christian leader James Dobson, who recently said he wouldn't support the Republican's presidential bid under any circumstances.

In a radio interview with KCBI, a Dallas Christian station, Dobson argued that McCain didn't support traditional marriage values and complained that the campaign finance legislation he co-authored hurt Christian broadcasters.

``Speaking as a private individual, I would not vote for John McCain under any circumstances,'' Dobson said on KCBI.

The 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign finance legislation stifled ``Christian radio'' and ``kept us from telling the truth right before elections,'' Dobson contended. ``He is not in favor of traditional marriage and I pray that we will not get stuck with him.''

During a campaign stop in Columbia, S.C., McCain said: ``I'm obviously disappointed and I'd like to continue and have a dialogue with Dr. Dobson and other members of the community.''

McCain has said gay marriage should not be legal but has angered some conservatives with his opposition to a constitutional amendment banning same-sex unions. The Arizona senator said the issue should be left to the states.

``I'm happy to say that I've established a dialogue with a number of other leaders,'' including the Rev. Jerry Falwell, ``Purpose Driven Life'' author Rick Warren and Dr. Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention.

McCain has reached out to conservatives he once crossed. Last May, he spoke at Falwell's Liberty University in Virginia. In 2000, Falwell opposed McCain's campaign for the GOP nomination and supported George W. Bush. At the time, McCain labeled Falwell and others on the right and the left as ``agents of intolerance.''

During his 2000 presidential bid, McCain also criticized Bob Jones University, a Christian fundamentalist college, for its ban on interracial dating.

In a GOP debate with Bush, McCain said that given the opportunity to speak at the school as Bush had, he would have said: ``Look, what you're doing in this ban on interracial dating is stupid, it's idiotic, and it is incredibly cruel to many people.''

McCain said last year that he wouldn't turn down an opportunity to speak at Bob Jones.

Since 2000, the school has lifted its interracial dating ban.[/q]
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 01-19-2007, 10:57 AM   #24
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 04:57 AM
Why cater to these bigots?
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 01-19-2007, 11:52 AM   #25
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 05:57 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar
Why cater to these bigots?


so you can win a South Carolina Republican Primary.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 01-19-2007, 01:57 PM   #26
Blue Crack Addict
 
U2democrat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: England by way of 'Murica.
Posts: 22,140
Local Time: 10:57 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




so you can win a South Carolina Republican Primary.



Chuck Hagel still has much of my respect as a man who sticks to his own guns, much more so than McCain.
__________________
U2democrat is offline  
Old 01-19-2007, 01:58 PM   #27
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 05:57 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2democrat
Chuck Hagel still has much of my respect as a man who sticks to his own guns, much more so than McCain.

agreed.

that's an example of conviction, not stubborness, which so many confuse with strength, when it's really obstinancy, and incuriosity.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 01-19-2007, 02:01 PM   #28
Blue Crack Addict
 
U2democrat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: England by way of 'Murica.
Posts: 22,140
Local Time: 10:57 AM
Also you realize that the several Republicans in the Senate who have been expressing their concern about Iraq have shockingly not been labeled as flip floppers...
__________________
U2democrat is offline  
Old 01-19-2007, 02:57 PM   #29
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 05:57 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2democrat
Also you realize that the several Republicans in the Senate who have been expressing their concern about Iraq have shockingly not been labeled as flip floppers...


and i'm sure it's McCain's sincere convictions based upon is incomparable experience that has caused him to stick to his guns on this -- not the fact that were he to side with the rest of Congress, and the American people, he'd be labled as such by the Dems (and they'd be right).

right now, McCain's prayer to avoid falling on his own sword is to go to the right of Bush, to say that he would have sent in more troops, earlier, and been more aggressive from the start, to say that if he had his way, and not these children in the White House, Iraq might not be in total chaos with nearly 2 million refugees.

so we'll see what he chooses to do. it's entirely plausible that he could still win the nomination -- though it's getting weirder, wiith Far Right candidates like Brownback saying they favor withdrawal -- and then, potentially, the presidency, and i think that divided government is nearly always a good thing, so a McCain presidency isn't a bad thing.

but the point remains: he's debased himself these past 7 years, and no more so than when he kissed the ass of a man he's rumored to despise (Bush) and held the hands of men he wants nothing to do with (Falwell, Bob Jones U, James Dobson).

McCain is as political as anyone else in Washington. his free pass in the media is a thing of the past.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 01-19-2007, 08:26 PM   #30
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 10:57 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511


yes, the NIE just TOTALLY agrees with you!

the US is now LESS SAFE due to the invasion of Iraq and the region is as unstable now as it has ever been with a nuclearizing Iran and growing fault lines between the Sunni and the Shia and very little progress in Israel/Palestine.

news flash: the Middle East is more than just Saddam Hussein.

news flash: simply because you don't support THE MANNER in which Saddam was removed in 2003 for the maximum benefit for the Republican political calendar (let's not forget the "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" bru-ha-ha, for that was always the real goal of the invasion), doesn't mean that you support Saddam Hussein. i know it's politically advantageous for you to try to draw up lines that say, either you support Bush or you're a Saddam lover, but such simplistic, nasty thinking has only ever come back to haunt the conservatives who conflate genuine national interest with their own poltiical agendas and timetables.

a dealing with Saddam Hussein was inevitable, but THE MANNER in which it was done in 2003 with maximum international outcry and no UN support and then followed up by the administration making virutally every mistake possible to make during the postwar -- starting with the disbanding of the Iraqi army to the ignorance of the role of sectarianis in Iraqi life to the absence of Americans on the ground who are fluent in Arabic to the idiotic execution of Saddam to the fact that Americans are essentially siding with the Shia in a larger Sunni/Shia regional conflict -- all this rests on McCain's shoulders.

and you know what else? the American people DO NOT agree with you! Bush's approval ratings remain in the 30's! he's hit new lows in some polls! he's only comparable to Nixon! the Democrats won in 2006 largely due to the administration's manifest incompetence in Iraq!

but soldier on! continue to praise everything that isn't an obvious defeat as a victory! the desperation is palpable.

especially when you don't understand what's going on in Iraq. this isn't a Democracy fighting for survival against Al-Qaeda jihadists. the Maliki government is little omre than a front for Shia militias. recent comments by Maliki express a clear desire to be given weapons and more training in order to unleash Shiite state-sanctified violence against SUnni insurgents. he want the US to continue to cleans Sunni "insurgents" in Baghdad. this is the US taking sides in an Arab civil war, and the smart money is on the US withdrawing to Kurdistan to manage the war from afar, remove the Western element in what is a sectarian ethnic conflict, and to focus the struggle in the Middle East from "Islam vs. America" to "Islam vs. Islam."


[q]Iraq is not in a Civil War yet, and the violence in Iraq pales in comparison to the violence that was seen in Bosnia, Sudan, Congo, Afghanistan, and many other area's around the world. To put the violence in Iraq up with these other conflicts is simply ignorant. Far more Iraqi's were killed and slaughtered during multiple points during Saddam's time in power than have been killed in the past four years. Yet, this is the man Mr. Obama and several Democrats would have prefered to keep in power.[/q]

tell that to the 1.5 MILLION refugees from Iraq. tell that to the 34,000 people who have been killed in 2006 alone.

and there are American troops on the ground trying to prevent this violence! and still we have unspeakable levels of violence (and i love the vague "and many other areas around the world").



[q]The moral failure of Vietnam is found in those that pushed for and successfully brought about the abandonment of that country after the United States and South Vietnamese had been successful in defeating the insurgency within the country as well as defending it from North Vietnamese invasions. The abandonment led to the slaughter and current imprisonment of South Vietnam. The Democrats are looking to repeat the process in Iraq.[/q]

the moral failure of Vietnam, like in Iraq, is an American political structure ignorant to history and culture. a continuous state of seige is not a victory.


[q]No matter how you stack it, McCain is on the right side of history, because no one in the future will be able to successfully argue that a man like Saddam should have remained in power after everything he had done to Iraq and the region. But some people can't see that because they think the history of Iraq started in March 2003.[/q]

and for some, it started in 1991 -- we forget what friends we were with Saddam when he opposed the Iranians.


[q]McCain understands the United States fundamental security needs in the region and understands that the United States can't simply abandon Iraq like it did Vietnam.[/q]

yes, and the American people are surely with him.

STING, if your arguments are so obviously compelling and so deserving of their smugness, then it's faily obvious you'd, you know, garner some support, that Bush wouldn't have the lowest sustained approval ratings of any president since Nixon, that McCain would be soaring on the back of your rhetoric.

but that hasn't happened. and it won't happen.

and McCain authorized torure. never forget that. he enabled this rhesus monkey of a president to detain any American citizen at any time as he sees fit.

lessons learned well from the Hanoi Hilton, natch.

The NIE does agree with that, especially the NIE report of 2002 in regards to Saddam. The fundamental US Security concerns in the region is the security of Persian Gulf Oil supply, mainly the oil supply in northern Saudi Arabia and to a lesser extent Kuwait. Saddam and his regime that was clearly hostile to this US and global security interest has been removed as well as the means by which he had to threaten both Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. NOTHING, in Iraq, is remotely as capable as Saddam's military was with regards to threatening his neighbors to the south. The oil in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia is more secure than it has been in decades do to the lack of a hostile and capable military entity in Iraq. The Sunni insurgents nor Shia militia's do not have the capability to launch a military operation like Saddam launched in August of 1990 in which he overan Kuwait with TWO Republican Guard divisions in 12 hours. They don't have tanks, Armored Personal Carriers, Artillery, Combat Aircraft, Helicopters, but more importantly, the training and logistical capability to carry out and sustain such operations.

This is why the United States, the region, and the world is safer with Saddam out of power. The removal of the biggest threat to one of the planets most vital resources has made the whole world safer. NEWS FLASH, OIL is the primary interest of the USA and global community in the region and the flow of oil has the ability to impact the rest of the planet in ways farr in excess of anything else in the region.

The main thrust behind Iran's nuclear program which started in the 1980s, was the threat of Saddam, and the huge losses Iran took from WMD attacks during the Iran/Iraq war. One could argue there were greater fault lines between the Sunni and Shia when Saddam slaughtered 300,000 Shia in March 1991. The sectarian violence in Iraq continues to be primarily isolated to one city.


The Bush administration addressed the issue of Saddam in the same way that his father did in terms of getting support for the UN and building a coalition. UN security council resolution 1441 authorized the invasion of Iraq with military force just as resolution 678 authorized the removal of Saddam's military from Kuwait with military force. I might add though, there was some opposition in the UN to resolution 678, while 1441 was passed with a unanimous vote. The vast majority of the coalition countries that engaged in actual fighting in 1991, were present in the operation in 2003. NEWS FLASH: You don't have to have French and German troops present in order for it to be considered a coalition.


Nothing short of a military invasion would have removed Saddam from power, and even a limited understanding of the history and capability of Saddam's regime would show that. Thats that opposed the invasion in 2003 did so in spite of the fact that all of the tools of containment had fallen apart and Saddam was now earning Billions of dollars on the black market. There were NO sanctions or embargo in place along the ENTIRE Syria/Iraq border by the summer of 2000!

McCain did not support the disbanding of the Iraqi military, has constantly pushed for more troops even before the invasion of Iraq, as well as wanting a more robust economic and political development program within the country. As much as you would like to put all of the problems of Iraq on McCain, you can't, if your objective.


A majority of Americans did support the invasion of Iraq, as well as the occupation for over 2 years. But the difficulty of any nationbuilding and counterinsurgency operation can test the faith of any country, especially when the liberals in the Democratic party have been working night and day to try and discredit the administration and the war, much to the liking of Sunni Insurgents, Al Quada, and Shia militia groups in Iraq.

Still, over a 1/3 of Americans still support the war, which is just as much support that existed for the Revolutionary War, Civil War in its later stages, as well as the intervention in Bosnia. While a majority of people living in the United States during those periods did not support those wars, history has shown that the minority opinion was correct.

The Malaki government is a just a front for Shia Militia's? Then please explain how 400 members of Al Sadr's militia as well as six key officers were arrested just this past weekend? The government in Iraq represents every single ethnic and religious group in the country. Its only been in power for 8 months, and you expect it to have achieved more than countries that take decades to solve such problems. What you don't understand is that MOST people in Iraq have nothing to do with the Iraqi insurgency, militia's or Al Quada, and if the Iraqi military is given the time and support needed to grow into a compentent military force, the coalition military will be able to withdraw, security will improve, which in turn will help bring about better economic and political conditions through out the country. But its a process that takes 10+ years and requires the continued military, economic and political support of the coalition. In addition, you cannot simply look at one part of the country, Baghdad, and continue to pretend that what happens in Baghdad happens all over Iraq. The United States military has continued to stress that 90% of the sectarian violence in Iraq happens in just one city, Baghdad.

But no, lets continue to call a process that takes 10+ years to work a failure just after 3 years. Lets continue to expect miracles of a government that has only been in office 8 months. Iraq is further ahead than Afghanistan on so many of these fundamental issues, yet Afghanistan is considered a success or simply not mentioned. If you support a withdrawal from Iraq for what ever the reason, you should also be supporting a withdrawal from Afghanistan as well.


Nothing that has happened in Iraq the past four years is even remotely equal to the slaughter Saddam inflicted on the Shia in March 1991. Not even even close and thats just one month.


The United States was never friends with Saddam. It tried to help a little bit starting in 1983 when Saddam risked losing the war with Iran. A total Iraqi defeat was not in the interest of anyone on the planet. Regardless, Iraq was a Soviet client state and recieved nearly all of its military support from the Soviet Union. The United States never sent Iraq any combat weapon systems, although it did send TOW missiles to Iran in the arms for hostage deal. It did send some Trucks, Transport Helicopters, intelligence on the Iranian military, and food, but that was the extent of it. Saddam's invasion of Iran was harmful to the security of the entire region because it weakened Iraq to the point that it almost lost the war.

Its not the US military or government that is ignorant of history, but those that have attacked the US military and government time and again over the past few decades.


Just because McCain and those who support the war in Iraq are at the current time in the minority does not in any way show that their policies are wrong. The right set of policies in the Revolutionary War, Civil War, or in regards to intervention in Bosnia were not supported by a majority of people living within the United States at the time, but history has proven that they had the right policy to address the situation. The war in Iraq did not swing from having the majority supporting it to only a minority supporting until over 2 years after the invasion itself. Support fluctuates in long term interventions such as Iraq, and the insurgents are hoping that opposition to the war will increase to the point that the United States pulls out. But provided the United States does not withdraw from Iraq prematurely, it will succeed in its objectives there, and once that happens, public opinion about the intervention will change from where it currently is.
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:57 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com