@Damkira
Well, I separate the willingness to send in more troops to put out the tinderbox that is Iraq since Bush started the war from the willingness to start a new war. Forgetting Iraq, what seems to be his stance on preemptive military action? How much does he favor peaceful, diplomatic resolutions to conflicts over the possibility or even the threat of war?

McCain on preemptive war:

"I don't think you could make a blanket statement about pre-emptive war, because obviously, it depends on the threat that the United States of America faces," the senator from Arizona told his audience.

Obama's stance on preemptive war is a bit more murky:

"I would also argue that we have the right to take unilateral military action to eliminate an imminent threat to our security -- so long as an imminent threat is understood to be a nation, group, or individual that is actively preparing to strike U.S. targets (or allies with which the United States has mutual defense agreements), and has or will have the means to do so in the immediate future. Al Qaeda qualifies under this standard, and we can and should carry out strikes against them wherever we can. Iraq under Saddam Hussein did not meet this standard, which is why our invasion was such a strategic blunder." (Emphasis in text.)

This is one of the reasons that I personally think that Obama's VP should be Jim Webb. His military experience would work well to balance out Obama in my opinion.

@Damkira
Thanks for the info. :)

So it's the same stance?

The only difference really is Iraq. Where McCain wants to slowley withdraw troops after things are a little more stable. (and things are on the right paht.)

and Obama wants to pull out troops right away because "Iraq isn't trying because we are there". Yet has reserved the right to put them back when things get worse.

So he's basically going to pull out, things are going to get worse then put the troops back in. What's the point?

You don't think unilaterally going into countries without permission could start wars?  Including really unstable countries like Pakistan, where out entrances would make the very tenious hold of their president even more tenious.

I am voting for Obama but McCain would do a better job in Military.

McCain for sure. He definitely gets more respect from the military, seeing that he was a POW and Obama is a community organizer who has done literally nothing in the Senate.

we wont use guns, we wont use bombs, well use the one thing weve got more of, thats our minds

Wow.  You're really buying the Obama hype train huh?

McCain has VERY different policies to George Bush on a whole range of issues including Iraq.  Ironically, the main issue where McCain shares a viewpoint with Bush is immigration, and Democrats actually don't mind Bush's policy of allowing illegal immigrants to apply for citizenship.

As for Iraq, there are not two policy arguments that dictate either for or against. 

McCain has opposed loads of Bush's operational decisions in Iraq.  Again ironically, the only major one he DIDN'T oppose was the surge which seems to be working. 

I can't bring myself to say going to Iraq was a good idea.  But when I think about the fact that on September 11, 2001 every Islamic Militant in the world rose up in dedication to America's destruction, and despite this there has not been a SINGLE successful attack on America since, I have to ask myself if Bush has done exactly what he promised to do: protect the USA from terrorism.

Certainly he did some dumb and highly unethical things (declaring WMD's were in Iraq on shoddy evidence anyone?), but that doesn't mean he was wrong to think invading Iraq would help keep terrorism clear of the USA.  You have to wonder how the whole thing would have gone down if McCain had been at the helm of the military from the beginning.  He wanted to send more troops in the first place.  Imagine if the surge numbers had been there from the beginning and the militants had never become entrenched.........

mccain!!