By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
superchunk on 03 September 2008
Edit Thread
rocketpig said:
superchunk said:
Originally it was solely because I like nearly all of his views, a lot more than McCain's, now it has been cemented with the horrible VP choice of McCain. I really dislike ultra-conservative religious zealots. (Notice I didn't put any particular religion)

Funny how Obama's plan on getting out of Iraq is essentially what Bush and the Iraqi's are now agreeing on?

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Let's not rewrite history here. McCain and Bush wanted the surge, which has put Iraq in the position to let our troops start phasing out.

Obama was steadfastly against the surge and wanted to pull out of Iraq no matter what shape the country was left in.

Which one makes more sense in the long run? Bailing out of Iraq and leaving an unstable hotbed in an already unstable region or pushing to make the country stable (well, as much as possible anyway) before leaving?

Just because the timelines end up the same doesn't mean the two strategies share much in common. One of them involved fucking the Iraqis and leaving them open to Iran and other influences, the other gives them a fair shot at self-government.

We started this mess, it's our obligation to finish it as best we can, not run back home like a bunch of chickenshits and cause even more strife in an already fucked up region of the world.

I'm not talking about the surge. Even though I actually agree it was necessary. I'm talking about the shorter timetable to removing troops whereas previously Bush and McCain had no timetable at all.

Just a week or so ago Bush/US and the Iraqi government agreed US troops would be out in 18 months. Did you completely miss that news? That is basically the exact same thing Obama has been saying since he began his run for pres. To pull out in a predetermined time, less than 2 years. Our handover of the Ankbar district the other day was part of this gradual decline.