RE: Is McCain in the land of far, far, away?

RE: Is McCain in the land of far, far, away? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> Current Events

Message

wing2000 -> RE: Is McCain in the land of far, far, away? (4/16/2008 12:58:02 PM)
...or you can read McCain's book "Faith of our Fathers" btw, since the race is over on the Republican side, it's only natural for the press to focus on the dueling democrats....and as others have said, it's to McCain's advantage to stay low..... although he was on the front page of our newspaper today.....but then I live in his home state.

Leslie_JnJs_mom -> RE: Is McCain in the land of far, far, away? (4/16/2008 1:13:29 PM)
I am sure he is taking notes too. Sooner or later one of the two Democrats will win and will focus all of their attention on him. I did notice the news saying that MCcain was making public everying he ever did so the liberal media could not drag something up from 100 years ago and try to paint him as a horrible person for it.

lightshineon -> RE: Is McCain in the land of far, far, away? (4/16/2008 1:14:10 PM)
Maybe so. I just like to hear what they say, and how they say it. I really like it when it is not scripted. I will read the book thank you. quote: ORIGINAL: wing2000 ...or you can read McCain's book "Faith of our Fathers" btw, since the race is over on the Republican side, it's only natural for the press to focus on the dueling democrats....and as others have said, it's to McCain's advantage to stay low..... although he was on the front page of our newspaper today.....but then I live in his home state.

cow451 -> RE: Is McCain in the land of far, far, away? (4/16/2008 1:58:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: stamper_ben quote: ORIGINAL: cow451 quote: ORIGINAL: lightshineon like to get to know him a little though. quote: ORIGINAL: stamper_ben It is smart for Juan to stay in a man sized freezer at the moment. That way he can't hurt himself. There's this little deal called the internet. You may have heard about it. Candidates actually have "websites" where they give information. The "Grand Old Party", also known as the "GOP" or "Republican Party" also has a website or two. Your lack of information cannot be blamed on anyone but yourself. It is not the media's job to educate you. Wow, didja wake up on the wrong side of the bed this morning Cow? I, for one, refuse to be "educated" by the media. I know of Juan's stances on issues, which is what will cause my trepidation when I put the X next to his name in Nov. We were speaking of the vast unwashed masses of potential voters out there in the land who DO get the majority of their "education" from the media in this thread. Now go have a cuppa and chill out a bit. Oh, what happened to the old individual responsibility philosophy. You want somebody to control the media? How marxist! The way to influence the media is with that remote thingy.

lightshineon -> RE: Is McCain in the land of far, far, away? (4/16/2008 2:30:06 PM)
Yes, cow they have secret camera's in my home, watching me flip through the stations, I knew it! quote: ORIGINAL: cow451 quote: ORIGINAL: stamper_ben quote: ORIGINAL: cow451 quote: ORIGINAL: lightshineon like to get to know him a little though. quote: ORIGINAL: stamper_ben It is smart for Juan to stay in a man sized freezer at the moment. That way he can't hurt himself. There's this little deal called the internet. You may have heard about it. Candidates actually have "websites" where they give information. The "Grand Old Party", also known as the "GOP" or "Republican Party" also has a website or two. Your lack of information cannot be blamed on anyone but yourself. It is not the media's job to educate you. Wow, didja wake up on the wrong side of the bed this morning Cow? I, for one, refuse to be "educated" by the media. I know of Juan's stances on issues, which is what will cause my trepidation when I put the X next to his name in Nov. We were speaking of the vast unwashed masses of potential voters out there in the land who DO get the majority of their "education" from the media in this thread. Now go have a cuppa and chill out a bit. Oh, what happened to the old individual responsibility philosophy. You want somebody to control the media? How marxist! The way to influence the media is with that remote thingy.

RichLP -> RE: Is McCain in the land of far, far, away? (4/20/2008 6:10:09 PM)
John McCain is clueless when it comes to Iraq. He's contradicted himself repeatedly and his allegations about al-Qaeda in Iraq make no sense. It is this cluelessness, which George W. Bush has repeatedly shown, which portends for a dangerous future for the United States presence in Iraq if McCain were to be elected.

henny -> RE: Is McCain in the land of far, far, away? (4/20/2008 8:31:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RichLP John McCain is clueless when it comes to Iraq. He's contradicted himself repeatedly and his allegations about al-Qaeda in Iraq make no sense. I think you are right there. He keeps repeating the tired old Bush admin line that Al Qaeda is our main enemy in Iraq. If he actually believes this it does show that he is clueless as to what is going on there. Or biggest problem at the moment is not Al Qaeda, but splinter Iraqis groups (like Al Sadr's malitia) who still wish to exercise a certain amount of power. I suspect he knows this, but "Al Qaeda" is an easier political sound bite -which is probably why he keeps peddling it at stump speeches.

lightshineon -> RE: Is McCain in the land of far, far, away? (4/20/2008 9:04:33 PM)
Give it to the man, that he is straight-up, unlike the other two. Maybe what McCain is saying is not popular, but he has courage to say it. quote: ORIGINAL: henny quote: ORIGINAL: RichLP John McCain is clueless when it comes to Iraq. He's contradicted himself repeatedly and his allegations about al-Qaeda in Iraq make no sense. I think you are right there. He keeps repeating the tired old Bush admin line that Al Qaeda is our main enemy in Iraq. If he actually believes this it does show that he is clueless as to what is going on there. Or biggest problem at the moment is not Al Qaeda, but splinter Iraqis groups (like Al Sadr's malitia) who still wish to exercise a certain amount of power. I suspect he knows this, but "Al Qaeda" is an easier political sound bite -which is probably why he keeps peddling it at stump speeches.

RichLP -> RE: Is McCain in the land of far, far, away? (4/20/2008 9:34:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: henny I think you are right there. He keeps repeating the tired old Bush admin line that Al Qaeda is our main enemy in Iraq. If he actually believes this it does show that he is clueless as to what is going on there. Or biggest problem at the moment is not Al Qaeda, but splinter Iraqis groups (like Al Sadr's malitia) who still wish to exercise a certain amount of power. I suspect he knows this, but "Al Qaeda" is an easier political sound bite -which is probably why he keeps peddling it at stump speeches. Indeed. McCain has spoken about how the Shiites of Iran are arming and training radical Salafi Sunnis to kill Shiites in Iraq. McCain has talked about how Shiites or Iran will take over Iraq - all the while ignoring the facts that the US occupation catapulted the Iraq Shia to power in Iraq. McCain has warned that "Al Qaeda is on the run, but they�re not defeated." He has also criticized the Democrats for their intention to pull out US troops and says that if that were to happen, "Al Qaeda will then have won," and said that if we were to leave, Al Qaeda would be "taking a country." Pro-Iran Shiites and Al Qaeda - not the splinter group Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, but the REAL Al Qaeda - simply cannot coexist. Shiite Iran assisted the United States in overthrowing the Taliban in Afghanistan; Al Qaeda is a radical Sunni group. So who is going to take over Iraq if we leave... the Iranians/Shiites or Al Qaeda? I'd laugh at this man's utter ignorance, but then I am sobered by the appalling cluelessness of George W. Bush and reminded at the catastrophic consequences of Bush's separation from reality. All I am left to conclude is that whatever other credentials McCain may bring to the table (and I don't doubt he loves America, even though he killed civilians in Vietnam under the guise of fighting for Vietnamese people's rights), McCain is not fit to be president.

RichLP -> RE: Is McCain in the land of far, far, away? (4/20/2008 9:37:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lightshineon Give it to the man, that he is straight-up, unlike the other two. Maybe what McCain is saying is not popular, but he has courage to say it. But he's not even sure of what he's saying; he confuses the facts and contradicts himself. He walks through Baghdad with the security apparatus of the US military, including choppers flying overhead, and then says Iraq is safer. He leaves, and soon after people are killed in that same market he's just strolled through. McCain probably doesn't know there are really 3 civil wars going on and as Bush did not, McCain will probably fail to provide a political solution (which is quite difficult given the circumstances). So how will McCain deliver victory in Iraq? "Victory" sounds appealing, but that's because people don't want to fact the facts. We're not winning in Iraq and we're not going to. Then again, saying the truth isn't always a vote-getter now, is it.

henny -> RE: Is McCain in the land of far, far, away? (4/21/2008 3:57:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lightshineon Give it to the man, that he is straight-up, unlike the other two. Maybe what McCain is saying is not popular, but he has courage to say it. Which would be all well and good if what he said was actually true, but it's not. Al Qaeda is not the main threat to the Iraqi government, Iraqis groups who wish to start a civil war are. I actually think McCain is a smart man, so I'm sure he knows this. I just think he believes it's necessary to paint things with this sort of rhetoric to win. Which I think is a shame, as I think people would take him more seriously if he just laid out the problems in Iraq as they are and made the case for why he thinks we should stay based on this -even if this means he'll have to speak with a level of nuance that can't easily be converted into a sound bite. If he did this I actually think he'd be virtually unassailable on the issue (at least in terms of credibility), but if he keeps this sort of rhetoric up it's going to be very easy for the dems to discredit him and portray him as out of touch on the issue.

henny -> RE: Is McCain in the land of far, far, away? (4/21/2008 4:10:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RichLP So how will McCain deliver victory in Iraq? He would be a lot more convincing if he had an actual plan at all. His basic strategy just seems to be "stay the course and victory will come magically on its own." If he has some sort of plan on how to fix some of the political/sectarian problems at their root, he certainly hasn't clued us into it yet. Merely having our military there to quell violence does not address the root causes of that violence, and indeed, I think our presence there makes things even more contentious. Which does make me wonder if he actually buys his own rhetoric or not, as he must realize that even if he is elected there's no way we could really maintain our force there at current levels for long even if we wanted to. It's too costly and our military is already stretched far too thin. Regardless of if his completely undefined, as of yet, notion of "victory" is achieved or not, within the next year or so we will have no other choice but to begin to scale back our presence in the region -regardless of if a Democrat or Republican is elected.

RichLP -> RE: Is McCain in the land of far, far, away? (4/21/2008 8:34:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: henny quote: ORIGINAL: RichLP So how will McCain deliver victory in Iraq? He would be a lot more convincing if he had an actual plan at all. His basic strategy just seems to be "stay the course and victory will come magically on its own." If he has some sort of plan on how to fix some of the political/sectarian problems at their root, he certainly hasn't clued us into it yet. Merely having our military there to quell violence does not address the root causes of that violence, and indeed, I think our presence there makes things even more contentious. Which does make me wonder if he actually buys his own rhetoric or not, as he must realize that even if he is elected there's no way we could really maintain our force there at current levels for long even if we wanted to. It's too costly and our military is already stretched far too thin. Regardless of if his completely undefined, as of yet, notion of "victory" is achieved or not, within the next year or so we will have no other choice but to begin to scale back our presence in the region -regardless of if a Democrat or Republican is elected. Henny, I am beginning to think you read perhaps some of the same resources I do. [;)] The reason that McCain's message seems to work so well w/ much of the American public is that it talks about a victorious American effort. We Americans do not like to lose wars - the last time we lost one, the trauma stayed with us for quite a while. Add to that human pride and the real, tangible price our country has paid in money and blood, and no one wants to lose. But if we can't even secure the political field, and if McCain is totally unaware, or at least seems so as per his statements, that Moqtada Al-Sadr's Mahdi Army held its own and stood up to Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki and to the regular Iraqi army and police (several of whom defected to or surrendered to the Mahdi Army) in that 6-day conflict recently... how will the whole country be secured? Stay the course until when? How will all the horrors come to an end? When do our boys come home? When and how if ever do those competing groups (insurgents, militia, whatever you call them) set up a truce and come to a political peace on a national level? McCain has no answer. Obama and Clinton do not either, but this thread is about McCain.

Jhud -> RE: Is McCain in the land of far, far, away? (4/21/2008 11:22:11 AM)
I think McCain's one consistent point on Iraq is that a precipitous withdrawal from that country by American forces will certainly fuel conflict there whatever the presumed sources of that conflict; and on that count, he is absolutely right.

RichLP -> RE: Is McCain in the land of far, far, away? (4/21/2008 11:55:40 AM)
Civil war is already going on in Iraq and the US military fueled it in part. This is something that John McCain appears not to realize or to know. As far as the role of the US military, it is concerned with only one of the 3 civil wars going on right now; the two others (Kurds vs. Arabs in the north, and Shia on Shia in the south) are pretty much out of the reach of American forces. In fact, it was Britain's troops who were working in the south until they turned over authority to Iraqis not very long ago. Thus, in the end, the US military incursion into Iraq made the current atrocities possible. Whether we leave in 2 years or in the middle of the next decade will not postpone the inevitable mess that we created by going in when we should not have. Furthermore, McCain appears not to realize that there is an eerie parallel with Vietnam. The Iraqis are not standing up, thus perpetuating the necessity for an American military deployment. So when will Iraqis ever stand up so that our soldiers may stand down? And, I've already made my points on where McCain's statements are terribly off the mark when it comes to Iraq.

Jhud -> RE: Is McCain in the land of far, far, away? (4/21/2008 12:16:10 PM)
quote: Civil war is already going on in Iraq and the US military fueled it in part. This is something that John McCain appears not to realize or to know. As far as the role of the US military, it is concerned with only one of the 3 civil wars going on right now; the two others (Kurds vs. Arabs in the north, and Shia on Shia in the south) are pretty much out of the reach of American forces. In fact, it was Britain's troops who were working in the south until they turned over authority to Iraqis not very long ago. Thus, in the end, the US military incursion into Iraq made the current atrocities possible. Whether we leave in 2 years or in the middle of the next decade will not postpone the inevitable mess that we created by going in when we should not have. Furthermore, McCain appears not to realize that there is an eerie parallel with Vietnam. The Iraqis are not standing up, thus perpetuating the necessity for an American military deployment. So when will Iraqis ever stand up so that our soldiers may stand down? And, I've already made my points on where McCain's statements are terribly off the mark when it comes to Iraq . Well, too far into a debate about the causes of Iraq and I think this gets relegated to the Iraq thread; but none of that changes the fact that McCain is right about the consequences of us up and leaving.

RichLP -> RE: Is McCain in the land of far, far, away? (4/21/2008 12:18:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud Well, too far into a debate about the causes of Iraq and I think this gets relegated to the Iraq thread; but none of that changes the fact that McCain is right about the consequences of us up and leaving. The consequences will happen eventually, IMO. They are inevitable because we went in when we shouldn't have. And, none of this changes the fact that McCain is terribly off the mark with his allegations about al-Qaeda/Iraq/Shiites, etc. But indeed... we're veering off.

Jhud -> RE: Is McCain in the land of far, far, away? (4/21/2008 1:39:36 PM)
quote: The consequences will happen eventually, IMO. They are inevitable because we went in when we shouldn't have. I don't think 'when' we went in is neccesarily going to determine whether such consequences are going to happen, but i think the consequences are certain if we leave now. The fact is the West and the Middle East have been on a colision course for a long time, since the West continues to progress and the Middle East continues to stagnate in a 15th century political bubble. If we don't confront the realities of that place now, our children will later, with potentially devastating nuclear consequences if Iran has it's way.

RichLP -> RE: Is McCain in the land of far, far, away? (4/21/2008 1:44:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud I don't think 'when' we went in is neccesarily going to determine whether such consequences are going to happen, but i think the consequences are certain if we leave now. The fact is the West and the Middle East have been on a colision course for a long time, since the West continues to progress and the Middle East continues to stagnate in a 15th century political bubble. If we don't confront the realities of that place now, our children will later, with potentially devastating nuclear consequences if Iran has it's way. My point is that our invasion of Iraq was unnecessary. Whether in 2003 or 2002 or 2001, it was a bad move. As for east-west clashes, it was the US-led coalition that started the terrible mess in Iraq now - and it's a mess that we cannot control. The advantage of superior military power enjoyed by US troops cannot temper this mess entirely. McCain says that if we leave, Al Qaeda will take over. That is false. One day we'll have to leave, regardless of who the sitting president is.

lightshineon -> RE: Is McCain in the land of far, far, away? (4/21/2008 1:46:47 PM)
The Iraq thread scroll down. Please.

Jhud -> RE: Is McCain in the land of far, far, away? (4/21/2008 2:18:04 PM)
quote: McCain says that if we leave, Al Qaeda will take over. That is false. One day we'll have to leave, regardless of who the sitting president is. First off, you can't say such a thing is 'false'; but even if it were, it's irrelevant - whomever might take over, the result of our leaving now would almost certainly be a blood bath. And John McCain is right to argue that we shouldn't.

RichLP -> RE: Is McCain in the land of far, far, away? (4/21/2008 2:28:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud First off, you can't say such a thing is 'false'; but even if it were, it's irrelevant - whomever might take over, the result of our leaving now would almost certainly be a blood bath. And John McCain is right to argue that we shouldn't. It is false because the foreign fighters (who comprise the so-called "Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia," which isn't the Al Qaeda of Osama Bin Laden) are few in number and Iraq's population is over 20 million in a very large country, and also because both Sunni and Shiite Iraqis are known to despise foreign Salafists. I think it is relevant because we need to know who the actors are on that stage. Misrepresenting this to the American people by playing on fears of Osama's group taking over Iraq is simply not backed by reality. If McCain knows this is false, he's being dishonest; if he doesn't know, it just reinforces my previously stated point of how he is clueless about Iraq - as George W. Bush has proven himself to be.

Jhud -> RE: Is McCain in the land of far, far, away? (4/21/2008 2:37:56 PM)
quote: It is false because the foreign fighters (who comprise the so-called "Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia," which isn't the Al Qaeda of Osama Bin Laden) are few in number and Iraq's population is over 20 million in a very large country, and also because both Sunni and Shiite Iraqis are known to despise foreign Salafists. I think it is relevant because we need to know who the actors are on that stage. Misrepresenting this to the American people by playing on fears of Osama's group taking over Iraq is simply not backed by reality. If McCain knows this is false, he's being dishonest; if he doesn't know, it just reinforces my previously stated point of how he is clueless about Iraq - as George W. Bush has proven himself to be. First off, Al Qaeda has shown it doesn't need to be in the majority to have great influence in a country (see:Afganistan). And the reason why they are so few have much to do with us being there. None the less, I don't think they are the greatest threat to stability in Iraq right now; I think Iran would be. None of which argues for the precipitous withdrawal that Obama et. al. support and McCain rightly opposes.

RichLP -> RE: Is McCain in the land of far, far, away? (4/21/2008 2:46:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud First off, Al Qaeda has shown it doesn't need to be in the majority to have great influence in a country (see:Afganistan). And the reason why they are so few have much to do with us being there. None the less, I don't think they are the greatest threat to stability in Iraq right now; I think Iran would be. None of which argues for the precipitous withdrawal that Obama et. al. support and McCain rightly opposes. Al Qaeda flourished in Afghanistan in part because it took advantage of the vaguely defined border between Afghanistan and Pakistan, and because the Taliban was friendly to it. If there is one thing in common between the Baath regime and Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki�s government (if you can call it that) is that both hated Al Qaeda and Islamic militants of its stripes. Iraq is a different country, and as I said, both Sunni and Shiite Iraqis have openly taken up arms against foreign Salafists as they despise them and the atrocities they have committed. As I said, McCain talks about Al Qaeda (not the offshoot group �Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia,� but rather, the original one) taking over Iraq; and then, he speaks of the Iranian Shiites doing so. That Osama�s group can�t take over Iraq, I�ve told you why. As for Iran, if �great influence� from Iran is so abhorrent to McCain, one wonders why he has shown no qualms to how the US-led occupation catapulted Iraqi Shiites to power in Iraq, none the less since both ISCI and Moqtada Al-Sadr are Shiite groups with �great influence� in Iraq, and, unlike Sunni Iraqis, they are actually friendly with Iran�s current leadership. In the end, McCain�s statements show him he either knows what he says is false but he says those statements anyway, which make him dishonest� or, he doesn�t know. And that is a problem for someone who is running for the presidency.

blessedinnyc -> RE: Is McCain in the land of far, far, away? (4/21/2008 2:58:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud First off, Al Qaeda has shown it doesn't need to be in the majority to have great influence in a country (see:Afganistan). And the reason why they are so few have much to do with us being there. None the less, I don't think they are the greatest threat to stability in Iraq right now; I think Iran would be. None of which argues for the precipitous withdrawal that Obama et. al. support and McCain rightly opposes. So what, again, is the purpose of maintaining this large military presence in Iraq? It's costing us about $100 Billion/year in appropriations spending, and likely another $150 Billion/year in accruals and overhead. $250 Billion would be enough money to construct 70 hardened, safe nuclear plants. This would provide enough energy to replace all of Iran's oil production. Additonally, it would: 1.) Lower energy costs for Americans and improve the trade deficit. 2.) Starve Iran of the funds it needs to run its nuclear program. 3.) Send less money to countries that sponsor terrorism. 4.) Turn Chavez and Ahmadinejad into obscure third-world dictators. (Like that guy in Turkmenistan, whatever his name is.)

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI