Full Version: McCain vs Obama vision for Iraq
So far in this election I have not found very many well discussed issues related reasons for the opposition to John McCain as the next President of the United States (possibly because the focus is still on the Democratic primary). One reason that has surfaced from Dontreadonme is the belief that John McCain will continue the Iraq conflict in a way that is similar to the way Bush has handled it.
I think that a lot of this belief is based on the now infamous 100 years comment by McCain. Charles Krauthammer wrote a very clear piece on how Obama and others have tried to distort this statement into a baseless belief that McCain wants 100 years of war in Iraq. McCain’s stance is support for a presence in Iraq similar to the 17 years in Kuwait that we’ve sustained or the 50 years that we’ve had a presence in South Korea. To argue that McCain wants 100 years of war is simply false and would be unreasonable, unless you also argue that Obama co-chairman General McPeak wants the same thing as he is quoted as saying “we’ll be there a century, hopefully.”
What can be debated is how an Obama presidency and McCain presidency would differ in their handling of the conflict in Iraq. It is an important concern and something that we owe it to ourselves to examine the candidates closely on. During the Republican primary I brought up the topic of who would end the war first for each side here. My take was McCain for the Republicans and Obama for the Democrats. Seeing as Obama voted against the war and Hillary did not, it seemed an obvious choice.
The truth is that I didn’t know a whole lot about Obama at the time. For instance I didn’t know that he has not promised to bring the combat troops home during his first term. Obama does say he would bring troops home in 16 months, yet in January 2007 he introduced legislation in the Senate to remove all of our combat troops from Iraq by March 2008 (14 months if the legislation passed immediately) and he won't committed to removing them in his first term. Obama also says that if al Qaeda sets up forces in Iraq that he would keep troops in Iraq. Seeing as al Qaeda is in Iraq, to me this points to a distinct possibility of troops remaining in Iraq under an Obama presidency.
Meanwhile John McCain at the World Affairs Council gave a speech that tells us a lot about his understanding of war.
Question for Debate:
Would Barack Obama actually do anything substantively different with troop levels in Iraq than John McCain?
Is it possible to responsibly remove all of the troops from Iraq in 16 months?
If McCain’s vision that Iraq and Afghanistan “in time become pillars of stability, tolerance, and democracy” in the Middle East is achieved, what would the US gain? Is that vision possible? Do you believe that we should continue to rely “on autocrats to provide order and stability” to the region?
I think that a lot of this belief is based on the now infamous 100 years comment by McCain. Charles Krauthammer wrote a very clear piece on how Obama and others have tried to distort this statement into a baseless belief that McCain wants 100 years of war in Iraq. McCain’s stance is support for a presence in Iraq similar to the 17 years in Kuwait that we’ve sustained or the 50 years that we’ve had a presence in South Korea. To argue that McCain wants 100 years of war is simply false and would be unreasonable, unless you also argue that Obama co-chairman General McPeak wants the same thing as he is quoted as saying “we’ll be there a century, hopefully.”
What can be debated is how an Obama presidency and McCain presidency would differ in their handling of the conflict in Iraq. It is an important concern and something that we owe it to ourselves to examine the candidates closely on. During the Republican primary I brought up the topic of who would end the war first for each side here. My take was McCain for the Republicans and Obama for the Democrats. Seeing as Obama voted against the war and Hillary did not, it seemed an obvious choice.
The truth is that I didn’t know a whole lot about Obama at the time. For instance I didn’t know that he has not promised to bring the combat troops home during his first term. Obama does say he would bring troops home in 16 months, yet in January 2007 he introduced legislation in the Senate to remove all of our combat troops from Iraq by March 2008 (14 months if the legislation passed immediately) and he won't committed to removing them in his first term. Obama also says that if al Qaeda sets up forces in Iraq that he would keep troops in Iraq. Seeing as al Qaeda is in Iraq, to me this points to a distinct possibility of troops remaining in Iraq under an Obama presidency.
Meanwhile John McCain at the World Affairs Council gave a speech that tells us a lot about his understanding of war.
QUOTE(John McCain)
When I was five years old, a car pulled up in front of our house in New London, Connecticut, and a Navy officer rolled down the window, and shouted at my father that the Japanese had bombed Pearl Harbor. My father immediately left for the submarine base where he was stationed. I rarely saw him again for four years. My grandfather, who commanded the fast carrier task force under Admiral Halsey, came home from the war exhausted from the burdens he had borne, and died the next day. In Vietnam, where I formed the closest friendships of my life, some of those friends never came home to the country they loved so well. I detest war.
Question for Debate:
Would Barack Obama actually do anything substantively different with troop levels in Iraq than John McCain?
Is it possible to responsibly remove all of the troops from Iraq in 16 months?
If McCain’s vision that Iraq and Afghanistan “in time become pillars of stability, tolerance, and democracy” in the Middle East is achieved, what would the US gain? Is that vision possible? Do you believe that we should continue to rely “on autocrats to provide order and stability” to the region?
Would Barack Obama actually do anything substantively different with troop levels in Iraq than John McCain?
No idea. Obama is obscure for me.
Is it possible to responsibly remove all of the troops from Iraq in 16 months?
Responsibly? No. Pulling out that fast will leave a power vacum in a fragile state full of armed factions. I believe a longer time is needed, though a phased withdrawal could actually begin very soon, if not immediately.
If McCain’s vision that Iraq and Afghanistan “in time become pillars of stability, tolerance, and democracy” in the Middle East is achieved, what would the US gain?
Untrustworthy allies perhaps? I don't believe Afghanistan will become a pillar of democracy. Its far too backward, isolated and surrounded by zealots. Iraq might pull through. Its people seem better educated and more intelligent when interviewed on TV. They are at least able to give a balanced analysis which is something I seldom see from Afghani's who come across as superstitious farmers.
Is that vision possible? Do you believe that we should continue to rely “on autocrats to provide order and stability” to the region?
No, I think you should rely on people's common sense. Give them their best option without treading on their cultural sensitivities and they will take it. Al qaeda is apparently not popular in Iraq. It shouldn't be that hard to marginalise the religious extremists.
No idea. Obama is obscure for me.
Is it possible to responsibly remove all of the troops from Iraq in 16 months?
Responsibly? No. Pulling out that fast will leave a power vacum in a fragile state full of armed factions. I believe a longer time is needed, though a phased withdrawal could actually begin very soon, if not immediately.
If McCain’s vision that Iraq and Afghanistan “in time become pillars of stability, tolerance, and democracy” in the Middle East is achieved, what would the US gain?
Untrustworthy allies perhaps? I don't believe Afghanistan will become a pillar of democracy. Its far too backward, isolated and surrounded by zealots. Iraq might pull through. Its people seem better educated and more intelligent when interviewed on TV. They are at least able to give a balanced analysis which is something I seldom see from Afghani's who come across as superstitious farmers.
Is that vision possible? Do you believe that we should continue to rely “on autocrats to provide order and stability” to the region?
No, I think you should rely on people's common sense. Give them their best option without treading on their cultural sensitivities and they will take it. Al qaeda is apparently not popular in Iraq. It shouldn't be that hard to marginalise the religious extremists.
QUOTE
Question for Debate:
Would Barack Obama actually do anything substantively different with troop levels in Iraq than John McCain?
Is it possible to responsibly remove all of the troops from Iraq in 16 months?
Would Barack Obama actually do anything substantively different with troop levels in Iraq than John McCain?
Is it possible to responsibly remove all of the troops from Iraq in 16 months?
No. He may posture all he wants but you cannot give a time table and expect it to “work”. And he has contradicted himself saying he would keep a “strik force” in Iraq – any one want to speculate on the real meaning of this?
QUOTE
If McCain’s vision that Iraq and Afghanistan “in time become pillars of stability, tolerance, and democracy” in the Middle East is achieved, what would the US gain? Is that vision possible? Do you believe that we should continue to rely “on autocrats to provide order and stability” to the region?
We would gain stability in a region that is vital to us while we are tied to oil – which will be forever as our elected representatives have now clue as to how to move toward energy independence.
This democracy might actually survive in Iraq. I have less hope for Afghanistan where tribal issues are more important and where the education level is quite low.
Would Barack Obama actually do anything substantively different with troop levels in Iraq than John McCain?
Is it possible to responsibly remove all of the troops from Iraq in 16 months?
I think that it's fairly clear that Obama is hedging his bets here. I'm not sure if it is due to a lack of confidence in his understanding of the situation or just the normal cautiousness that comes from a fluid situation. Listening to him at the Petraeus trial, I mean briefing, everything seemed to have a qualifier. If Basra is any kind of indication of what happens when troops pull out, then the reality on the ground would make a responsible first term pull out very unlikely. Fortunately, Obama hasn't committed to a first term pull out and the statement on leaving troops as long as al Qaeda is there would provide some cover for him to do the right thing.
If McCain's vision that Iraq and Afghanistan “in time become pillars of stability, tolerance, and democracy" in the Middle East is achieved, what would the US gain? Is that vision possible?
I think that many people don't understand what we gain with success in Iraq. There is a strong feeling that it just isn't worth it. The UK Times ran a great piece on how authoritarianism is gaining on democracy worldwide. With 40% of the world living under authoritarianism the battle is far from won, and we would be mistaken to absolve ourselves from the responsibility of keeping oppression at bay.
Lets look at WWII
in the Pacific. The US was attacked by a Japanese enemy that was unprovoked and responded with invasion of that country. The enemy was fierce, with suicide bombers that cost many US lives. We rebuilt Japan and have a military presence there to this day. They are now a free, peaceful, economically strong, socially responsible nation that is the United States best ally in East Asia. They provide the US a diplomatic and even military friend and buffer from China, North Korea, and possbily Russia now it appears. Not only that, Japan has led the way to transforming the East Asian region in Singapore, Taiwan, South Korea, Thailand, the Philipines, Malaysia, and Vietnam now so that these countries are open and economic friends of the United States and less susceptible to Chinese influence. Can you imagine winning the Cold War or dealing with a ever dangerous China without these allies and friends? How would our lives look?
The Japan example also shows that McCain's vision is possible. There are many similarities between them and what we face today. There are also many differences that make this conflict more difficult (Japan was isolated on islands for example and far from their nearest ally).
Is it possible to responsibly remove all of the troops from Iraq in 16 months?
I think that it's fairly clear that Obama is hedging his bets here. I'm not sure if it is due to a lack of confidence in his understanding of the situation or just the normal cautiousness that comes from a fluid situation. Listening to him at the Petraeus trial, I mean briefing, everything seemed to have a qualifier. If Basra is any kind of indication of what happens when troops pull out, then the reality on the ground would make a responsible first term pull out very unlikely. Fortunately, Obama hasn't committed to a first term pull out and the statement on leaving troops as long as al Qaeda is there would provide some cover for him to do the right thing.
If McCain's vision that Iraq and Afghanistan “in time become pillars of stability, tolerance, and democracy" in the Middle East is achieved, what would the US gain? Is that vision possible?
I think that many people don't understand what we gain with success in Iraq. There is a strong feeling that it just isn't worth it. The UK Times ran a great piece on how authoritarianism is gaining on democracy worldwide. With 40% of the world living under authoritarianism the battle is far from won, and we would be mistaken to absolve ourselves from the responsibility of keeping oppression at bay.
Lets look at WWII
in the Pacific. The US was attacked by a Japanese enemy that was unprovoked and responded with invasion of that country. The enemy was fierce, with suicide bombers that cost many US lives. We rebuilt Japan and have a military presence there to this day. They are now a free, peaceful, economically strong, socially responsible nation that is the United States best ally in East Asia. They provide the US a diplomatic and even military friend and buffer from China, North Korea, and possbily Russia now it appears. Not only that, Japan has led the way to transforming the East Asian region in Singapore, Taiwan, South Korea, Thailand, the Philipines, Malaysia, and Vietnam now so that these countries are open and economic friends of the United States and less susceptible to Chinese influence. Can you imagine winning the Cold War or dealing with a ever dangerous China without these allies and friends? How would our lives look? The Japan example also shows that McCain's vision is possible. There are many similarities between them and what we face today. There are also many differences that make this conflict more difficult (Japan was isolated on islands for example and far from their nearest ally).
QUOTE(moif)
If McCain's vision that Iraq and Afghanistan “in time become pillars of stability, tolerance, and democracy"ť in the Middle East is achieved, what would the US gain?
Untrustworthy allies perhaps?
I think that the way we used to do things in the Middle East is what has left us with untrustworthy allies. Following through with rebuilding and eduation like we did in Japan would leave similar, trustworthy allies in the Middle East IMO. McCain puts it better than I can...Untrustworthy allies perhaps?
QUOTE(John McCain @World Affairs Conference)
For decades in the greater Middle East, we had a strategy of relying on autocrats to provide order and stability. We relied on the Shah of Iran, the autocratic rulers of Egypt, the generals of Pakistan, the Saudi royal family, and even, for a time, on Saddam Hussein. In the late 1970s that strategy began to unravel. The Shah was overthrown by the radical Islamic revolution that now rules in Tehran. The ensuing ferment in the Muslim world produced increasing instability. The autocrats clamped down with ever greater repression, while also surreptitiously aiding Islamic radicalism abroad in the hopes that they would not become its victims. It was a toxic and explosive mixture. The oppression of the autocrats blended with the radical Islamists' dogmatic theology to produce a perfect storm of intolerance and hatred.
We can no longer delude ourselves that relying on these out-dated autocracies is the safest bet. They no longer provide lasting stability, only the illusion of it. We must not act rashly or demand change overnight. But neither can we pretend the status quo is sustainable, stable, or in our interests. Change is occurring whether we want it or not. The only question for us is whether we shape this change in ways that benefit humanity or let our enemies seize it for their hateful purposes. We must help expand the power and reach of freedom, using all our many strengths as a free people. This is not just idealism. It is the truest kind of realism. It is the democracies of the world that will provide the pillars upon which we can and must build an enduring peace.
We can no longer delude ourselves that relying on these out-dated autocracies is the safest bet. They no longer provide lasting stability, only the illusion of it. We must not act rashly or demand change overnight. But neither can we pretend the status quo is sustainable, stable, or in our interests. Change is occurring whether we want it or not. The only question for us is whether we shape this change in ways that benefit humanity or let our enemies seize it for their hateful purposes. We must help expand the power and reach of freedom, using all our many strengths as a free people. This is not just idealism. It is the truest kind of realism. It is the democracies of the world that will provide the pillars upon which we can and must build an enduring peace.
Would Barack Obama actually do anything substantively different with troop levels in Iraq than John McCain?
hard to say- McCain has been quite the "flip flopper" lately- usually I would have made a great deal of differences, and pointed out that McCain is "McSame". Hard to tell though.
yes, I do believe Obama would start the process for removal, and would stop the "moving the goalposts" set some kind of benchmark for success, and start the negotiations needed to get us out. I don't believe that will mean a complete withdrawal, however, I am sure there will be some "observers" there for some time,
Is it possible to responsibly remove all of the troops from Iraq in 16 months?
I am not sure what DTOM posted as a timetable, i am aware he and i and vladimere and possibly one other had a debate on this at one time? I would say no problem, under 24 months, depending on the negotiated cease fire it would take to make this happen.
If McCain’s vision that Iraq and Afghanistan “in time become pillars of stability, tolerance, and democracy” in the Middle East is achieved, what would the US gain?
Duh- it would be a great gem of world peace BUT
Is that vision possible?
Not in my lifetime, nor anyone's lifetime on this board, nor thier childrends lifetimes. It is not that kind of society.
Do you believe that we should continue to rely “on autocrats to provide order and stability” to the region?
Okay- here is a shock to most US citizens- but the majority of the world's population lives under this type of goverment. Most of the world, well, they favor stability over chaos, control over freedom.
One needs only travel the world and see peoples from every corner to observe this and know it to be true. Most of the world's goverment's are corrupt. Believe it or not, some places we call 'autocratic" are free-er for most than an average citizen here, as long as they don't try getting into politics. No nanny state, no social services, no goverment anything, accept they keep the crime rate down in certain areas, by being, um, autocratic.
For instance- Russian is in somewhat of a 'golden age" right now- and they all credit Putin for it- being the most popular leader in that country in several hundred years- no exageration- and he is as autocratic as they come.
But people are free-er now than they were under Gorby or Yeltsin. Mostly, free to live and breath without the chaos associated with the criminal lords who ruled the day under Gorby and yeltsin.
Putin also put out an ultimatum to the Mafia "if you impede foriegn investors, we will kill you"- and sure enough, some bodies turned up in parks to underscore the seriousness.
That happened while I was there last, BTW. Suddenly- I was much more "free" to do business, without layers and layers of bribes- still have to make them, but I have to make them to fewer people.
I hate to inform McCain- but the nations of the "islamofascist" like thier religion and want to keep it- no different than Christian America wants to convert to Islam.
Hamas is popularly elected. the leaders in Iran are freely elected.
If he is talking about "autocratic leaders" in Iran- he would be talking about the religious leaders. For some time, we have allowed our religious leaders alot of clout too.
In fact, have you seen the praying that has been going on between candidates today? All of them are "more christian than you"
In fact, in most cases it is the US that is overthrowing democracy in action to support autocratic leaders.
Okay- outside Grenada, what democracy and good guy have we helped out in the last 50 years?
Where is this beacon of light and hope we have given other countries anyway?
To whom? to Pinochet? to the shah of Iran? to the various military juntas of Guatemala? To Saddam? Remember- we supported Saddam- the autocratic strongman, against Iran, with a freely elected goverment.
What goverment of democracy and stability have we EVER supported Mr McCain? How about South Vietnamese goverment? That one sucked too, if you recall.
Mr McCain, which Shi-ite religious faction with a strong militia and history of war crimes are you going to support anyway?
How many military men and how many years are you willing to have Americans sacrifice in order to prop up Maliki's regime and the Badr Corps?
That would be my questions to him- who is this "democracy" you are talking about in Iraq? Care to name them?
I think Obama got schooled by Mike Gravel when he said "Who ya gonna bomb Obama- who ya gonna bomb"- Obama clearly got taken to school for being too politician-y by good ol' Mike.
I would hope McCain gets to learn the same lesson from Obama- who ya gonna back in Iraq McCain? Are you going to be able to define a "win"- without moving the goalposts over and over?
Just Leave me Alone!- how can you compare the occupation of Japan with the occupation of Iraq? Are you freakin' kidding me? I am not certain there was a very diverse, mixed tribal society in Japan- in fact, it is quite the opposite- Japan is one of the most homogenious societies on earth. They weren't willing to kill and die and ruin the whole country in order for thier tribal chieftans to become warlord- in fact, quite the opposite- the Japanese have a VERY strong NATIONAL identity- they identify themselves as 'japanese" (okay, in our language, I realize, in thiers, closer to Nippon or Nihon)
But they identify with a national identity- the Iraqis don't. They don't even call themselves Iraqi, IIRC.
As DTOM pointed out- they are a collection of tribes, loyal to tribes first, tribal religioius affiliations next, and much farther down the road- as possibly something resembling "iraq"
the kurds don't even consider that far- they want their own country- which I am all for personally- if we made Israel and Kosovo, I have no problem with a Kurdistan.
Just Leave me Alone!- this is the big McCain mistake that makes him McSame- is he stupid, or just playing politics? I mean, does he understand this basic difference between the japan, germany and Iraq examples?
How can you build a nation with a people with no national identity? Where tribal loyalties are first and foremost on every person living there list of priorties?
Um, how does McCain plan to go about changing that particular deal?
Oh yeah, not to mention, the instability that is starting to come, with, you know 7 MILLION refugees?
So, Just Leave me Alone!- what particular faction has John McCain said will be given the power to run that country? Which Iranian backed Shia majority?
hard to say- McCain has been quite the "flip flopper" lately- usually I would have made a great deal of differences, and pointed out that McCain is "McSame". Hard to tell though.
yes, I do believe Obama would start the process for removal, and would stop the "moving the goalposts" set some kind of benchmark for success, and start the negotiations needed to get us out. I don't believe that will mean a complete withdrawal, however, I am sure there will be some "observers" there for some time,
Is it possible to responsibly remove all of the troops from Iraq in 16 months?
I am not sure what DTOM posted as a timetable, i am aware he and i and vladimere and possibly one other had a debate on this at one time? I would say no problem, under 24 months, depending on the negotiated cease fire it would take to make this happen.
If McCain’s vision that Iraq and Afghanistan “in time become pillars of stability, tolerance, and democracy” in the Middle East is achieved, what would the US gain?
Duh- it would be a great gem of world peace BUT
Is that vision possible?
Not in my lifetime, nor anyone's lifetime on this board, nor thier childrends lifetimes. It is not that kind of society.
Do you believe that we should continue to rely “on autocrats to provide order and stability” to the region?
Okay- here is a shock to most US citizens- but the majority of the world's population lives under this type of goverment. Most of the world, well, they favor stability over chaos, control over freedom.
One needs only travel the world and see peoples from every corner to observe this and know it to be true. Most of the world's goverment's are corrupt. Believe it or not, some places we call 'autocratic" are free-er for most than an average citizen here, as long as they don't try getting into politics. No nanny state, no social services, no goverment anything, accept they keep the crime rate down in certain areas, by being, um, autocratic.
For instance- Russian is in somewhat of a 'golden age" right now- and they all credit Putin for it- being the most popular leader in that country in several hundred years- no exageration- and he is as autocratic as they come.
But people are free-er now than they were under Gorby or Yeltsin. Mostly, free to live and breath without the chaos associated with the criminal lords who ruled the day under Gorby and yeltsin.
Putin also put out an ultimatum to the Mafia "if you impede foriegn investors, we will kill you"- and sure enough, some bodies turned up in parks to underscore the seriousness.
That happened while I was there last, BTW. Suddenly- I was much more "free" to do business, without layers and layers of bribes- still have to make them, but I have to make them to fewer people.
I hate to inform McCain- but the nations of the "islamofascist" like thier religion and want to keep it- no different than Christian America wants to convert to Islam.
Hamas is popularly elected. the leaders in Iran are freely elected.
If he is talking about "autocratic leaders" in Iran- he would be talking about the religious leaders. For some time, we have allowed our religious leaders alot of clout too.
In fact, have you seen the praying that has been going on between candidates today? All of them are "more christian than you"
In fact, in most cases it is the US that is overthrowing democracy in action to support autocratic leaders.
Okay- outside Grenada, what democracy and good guy have we helped out in the last 50 years?
Where is this beacon of light and hope we have given other countries anyway?
To whom? to Pinochet? to the shah of Iran? to the various military juntas of Guatemala? To Saddam? Remember- we supported Saddam- the autocratic strongman, against Iran, with a freely elected goverment.
What goverment of democracy and stability have we EVER supported Mr McCain? How about South Vietnamese goverment? That one sucked too, if you recall.
Mr McCain, which Shi-ite religious faction with a strong militia and history of war crimes are you going to support anyway?
How many military men and how many years are you willing to have Americans sacrifice in order to prop up Maliki's regime and the Badr Corps?
That would be my questions to him- who is this "democracy" you are talking about in Iraq? Care to name them?
I think Obama got schooled by Mike Gravel when he said "Who ya gonna bomb Obama- who ya gonna bomb"- Obama clearly got taken to school for being too politician-y by good ol' Mike.
I would hope McCain gets to learn the same lesson from Obama- who ya gonna back in Iraq McCain? Are you going to be able to define a "win"- without moving the goalposts over and over?
Just Leave me Alone!- how can you compare the occupation of Japan with the occupation of Iraq? Are you freakin' kidding me? I am not certain there was a very diverse, mixed tribal society in Japan- in fact, it is quite the opposite- Japan is one of the most homogenious societies on earth. They weren't willing to kill and die and ruin the whole country in order for thier tribal chieftans to become warlord- in fact, quite the opposite- the Japanese have a VERY strong NATIONAL identity- they identify themselves as 'japanese" (okay, in our language, I realize, in thiers, closer to Nippon or Nihon)
But they identify with a national identity- the Iraqis don't. They don't even call themselves Iraqi, IIRC.
As DTOM pointed out- they are a collection of tribes, loyal to tribes first, tribal religioius affiliations next, and much farther down the road- as possibly something resembling "iraq"
the kurds don't even consider that far- they want their own country- which I am all for personally- if we made Israel and Kosovo, I have no problem with a Kurdistan.
Just Leave me Alone!- this is the big McCain mistake that makes him McSame- is he stupid, or just playing politics? I mean, does he understand this basic difference between the japan, germany and Iraq examples?
How can you build a nation with a people with no national identity? Where tribal loyalties are first and foremost on every person living there list of priorties?
Um, how does McCain plan to go about changing that particular deal?
Oh yeah, not to mention, the instability that is starting to come, with, you know 7 MILLION refugees?
So, Just Leave me Alone!- what particular faction has John McCain said will be given the power to run that country? Which Iranian backed Shia majority?
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Apr 11 2008, 10:38 PM) 
I hate to inform McCain- but the nations of the "islamofascist" like thier religion and want to keep it- no different than Christian America wants to convert to Islam.
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Apr 11 2008, 10:38 PM)
I would hope McCain gets to learn the same lesson from Obama- who ya gonna back in Iraq McCain?
McCain is going to back the majority of Iraqis that are moderate and want Democracy. He's not trying to take away anyone's religion either. The challenge is admittedly more difficult than the Japanese case, but I disagree with your pessimism that this is somehow an impossible feat. The war has been blundered heavily up to now, and I understand yours and others frustrations. But it was John McCain who called Rumsfeld et al out on it. He has a pretty good track record so far on this thing. So when I read the following plan from an experienced problem solver like John McCain, I believe it.
QUOTE(John McCain)
Prevailing in this struggle will require far more than military force. It will require the use of all elements of our national power: public diplomacy; development assistance; law enforcement training; expansion of economic opportunity; and robust intelligence capabilities. I have called for major changes in how our government faces the challenge of radical Islamic extremism by much greater resources for and integration of civilian efforts to prevent conflict and to address post-conflict challenges. Our goal must be to win the "hearts and minds" of the vast majority of moderate Muslims who do not want their future controlled by a minority of violent extremists. In this struggle, scholarships will be far more important than smart bombs.
Nice platitudes- like I said- I am more concerned with him merely continueing GW's policies, even if he is smarter about it- it is the same thing. I don't dislike the guy, find him somewhat honorable, though I am concerned with his recent butt-kissing of GW, 
- anyway-
once again- nice platitudes- which group is he going to offer scholarships to there JLMA?
Like I said- what is his diplomatic solution to the tribal militia war issue? Um, some scholarships?
Ya, the problem is- you are talking about a literal hundred years there, trying to seperate tribal factions.
Anywhich way you slice it- we are going to be condemned to backing one Iranian backed regime or another. Not a puppet state of Iran or anything- I don't think any of the major Shi-ite leaders are all that eager to give up power to someone else- but in the end- they will be allies with our supposed "axis of evil" opponent?
So- JLMA- which faction does he plan on supporting you think?
- anyway- once again- nice platitudes- which group is he going to offer scholarships to there JLMA?
Like I said- what is his diplomatic solution to the tribal militia war issue? Um, some scholarships?
Ya, the problem is- you are talking about a literal hundred years there, trying to seperate tribal factions.
Anywhich way you slice it- we are going to be condemned to backing one Iranian backed regime or another. Not a puppet state of Iran or anything- I don't think any of the major Shi-ite leaders are all that eager to give up power to someone else- but in the end- they will be allies with our supposed "axis of evil" opponent?
So- JLMA- which faction does he plan on supporting you think?
CR. This is what is frustrating about debating with you. If I answer your questions, you repeat them as if I haven't. Again, McCain is going to back the majority of Iraqis that are moderate and want Democracy. These kinds of people are not regulated to only one ethnic group. Supporting one faction over another may be the easy way out, but it has led to the autocracies that have been our untrustworthy 'allies' in the region. And yes, we need to also realize that bringing people together from differing religious, or ethnic backgrounds is not done overnight.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.