Frodaddyg said:
Gore: Wouldn't have gone to war in Iraq. Bush: Did go to war in Iraq.
Kerry: Wanted to scale back the Iraq war in a move towards getting the hell out of there. Bush: Uh, yeah. Look where we are now.Sticking around and escalating it has just worked out AWESOME.
The war has been the biggest issue to me, even though it seems like the U.S. as a whole has basically decided to forget about it at this point. Obama has said he wants to put a movement in place to scale back troops. McCain has basically said that what we've done has been fine, and wants to "win" the war (You know, since "if we leave, we're just admitting defeat") without having any actual goals in place that would signify "winning". Is it when the new government we (and the Iraqis) seem disinterested in building is in place? Is it when there's no more Iraqis left alive to fight? By all means, I'd love to know what has to happen for there to be "victory" in Iraq. I have family over there currently, and friends who have already done two tours, and are being sent back for a third. For being the candidate with military experience, and that being in a war so eerily similar to this one in its unwinnability, McCain's stance on it strikes me as preposterous. My dad is also a Vietnam vet, (and one of the smartest political and military minds I know) and thinks we need to get out ASAP. Not leave Iraq entirely to itself, but scale back the deployments to a bare minimum. At some point, the Iraqis have to step up and take control, and that likely won't happen until they know it has to be done. If we keep "surging" troops, it's not exactly putting any pressure on them to take the reins. If we start scaling back with the intention of keeping a small maintainence force there, it would be a giant step in the right direction. Obama is at least talking about it. McCain is talking about the exact opposite, which is why he won't be getting my vote. |
McCain has given his definition of vicotry. Which is a working Iraq government and working army that can handle itself vs insurgents. Basically when the government troops can take over what the US is doing. Either way he seems dediated to having the whole thing over and almost no troops their within 5 years.
He isn't trying to conquer iraq, or kill everybody. Just fix iraq to the point of where we can be sure it isn't going to collapse in a bloody civil war/genocide/invasion.
It's a position I respect more then the democrats who went from "Oh the poor iraqis" to "Fuck the Iraqis! it's actually hurting us to try and fix our mistake."
It's really not that far off from Obama's 18 month plan.
Keep in mind his plan allows for a strikeforce to stay in Iraq to attack terrorists. (Or at least that's what he said in the deabtes) So if he pulled out most of the troops and things got worse he'd probably end up putting more US troops right back in there.
With either president i'd practically gurantee there will still be some troops in Iraq by the end of their first term.
If that's your whole reason for voting, you need to do more research, as their isn't a lot of difference in their actual plans. They both want a stable iraq first, and both plan to keep troops in iraq after it's stable. McCain wants troops to protect american intrests like our embassy and a military base while Obama wants a unilateral anti-terrorist task force... which i gotta think he's going to back off the unilateral part at first. I mean he said he was going to send troops in to pakistan to take out terrorists even against pakistan's wishes. Either way... that task force is likely going to need a military base... I assume he'd want troops to guard the embassy as well.
If you wanted troops actually out of Iraq you should of voted for Hilary while you had the chance.
I don't get the "force them to take the reins" comment either... as if the Iraqi's didn't want a safe stable country and wanted the US to watch over them like a mamma hen or something. The idea is ridiculious... they hate having us there. The only thing they hate more is the thought of a massive civil war. It's just Bush fucked up by disbanding the entire bathist army instead of interviweing and keeping on the less extreme bathists and the people who were just their to feed their famlies.
The only real differences I can tell between the two cadidates is that McCain wants to stop Ethanol subsidaries and Wants to veto all Earmark bills while Obama wants to get rid of the Bush Tax Cuts and Wants to institute universal healthcare for children. (by fining the parents if they don't get their kids health insurance.)
Even then you gotta wonder if McCain actually has the balls to veto every earmarked bill... sure he had his arms and legs broken in vietnam... but i mean getting between senators and their BS free money for worthless state projects?
You also gotta wonder whether Obama is willing to go through with that healthcare plan at a time when our economy sucks and people are going to be stretched so think that they can barely afford food and gas, let alone health insurance. (and to fine them for not having it no less.)
So which do you find more important? Getting rid of Ethanol subsidaries that actually cause more damage to the enviroment then good and are helping cause the global food shortage? Or getting rid of the Bush Tax cuts?
