Isn't there a difference between wanting to finish a war with victory compared to "continuing a pointless war?"

Obama/Biden seem to think you can dictate the terms of a war in a way that the enemy won't respond. If the enemy is fighting in Iraq what is the point of being in Afganistan. The McCain approach is to use a surge strategy to control territory and hold it. We take away Iraq from the enemy, control it, stabilize it, and eliminate the need to go back. What is the Obama approach? Can you articulate it?



I fault the debate format. Give people more than 2 minutes to address an issue if we want more details.

It seems that you simply disagree with her points, not that she did not make them. It is funny how you can give a sumation of her points, can you do the same for Biden?

Those who fail to learn from the past are doomed to repeat it.....
-----Added 3/10/2008 at 03 : 53 : 11-----
Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime.


We can sit there and control Iraq for 100 years but if we don't force them to take some responsibility and learn how to control it themselves then they never will.......

That is what Obama wants to do. Start transferring control to them a little at a time so that they will learn how to do it themselves.

That suggests that there are people who do. When I look back over the past 8 years with Chaney, it seems to me that he took Democratic party leaders by surprise, even though he wrote the book on executive power. Chaney pretty much did what he wanted, concentrated more power in the WH, gave Congress a big "FU", and got away with it.

So, when he leaves all will be o.k. Bush was the reason Congress voted to go to war. Bush was the reason Congress authorized the spending that lead to deficits. Bush wrote the legislation that let Fannie and Freddie go under. Etc.Etc.Etc.

Nothing. But it seems you don't get the point. We will withdraw with victory, on our terms, when we want based on conditions. Artificial timeframes fail to recognize the complexities of war.

it's easy to give a sumation of her points because she didn't have any points. She would simply go back to an issue that was on her cards and try to say something but there was NO substance there.

I was talking with a staunch republican today who is voting for McCain who didn't really understand what she was doing. He even admitted that she had nothing of substance in her "points" or entire debate.

Biden however, when faced with a question or in his rebuttal, simply threw out the facts and outlined exactly how the plan would work.

now about Iraq. I see victory as leaving the country and letting the Iraqi government control their issues. They have the capabilites and the what.. 400,000 thousand troops and police that we trained?? To say that withdrawl is failure is simply old hat vietnam thinking.

Obama's approach is that. We have been over there, we have freed the world of the "bad guy" and we have trained the people there to handle their own government and issues. Why would we continue to send our sons and daughters over there, when they aren't needed any longer?? McCain's strategy is nothing more than a war general strategy who simply loves war and never thinks a war is over. In this new world that's a dangerous line to take.

Now talking about dictating a war in a way the enemy won't respond.. how is it that McCain and Bush/Cheney were all for this war, thinking it would take a few months and yet we are still there? How is it they think that two groups of people would get along when they clearly don't?? That is dictating a war in a way that enemies don't respond.

So, your approach would be like - o.k. son you are 16 months old - I am going to throw you in the water - swim or die?
-----Added 3/10/2008 at 03 : 58 : 25-----
What???

and this makes it ok?? That is dangerous. The VP is not there for legislative power except in the event of a tie vote.. he clearly did not understand this role and neither does your psuedo-little miss maverick.



It's no secret to anyone that Bush economic policies have led us down the wrong path. Will it be fixed the day he leaves? Hardy har har.. of course not.. however, since afaik, Obama is using a lot of Clinton's economic advisers and that.. is a good thing to get us on the right track.



so basically.. it's our country now. Fuck the Iraqi people and their government.. wait.. I thought we were over there to "free" and give them independence and democracy?? So.. now we have them trained and a government set up.. but let's just fuck them in the ass some more.. yeah that makes a lot of sense :rolleyes:

Obama has set a time frame for withdrawl.. however, I'm quite positive that if a situation did arise, the time frame could be restructured. It's not a hard concept to grasp.. unless your Sarah Palin or John McCain.

I love it when the left underestimates people on the right. Calling Republicans morons, how has that been working for you? Don't answer now, answer in 8 years.

ok.. fine.. let's go this route.. tell me in detail what her "points" were and how she clearly defined them and how she wants to resolve issues.

and the whole.. "I follow McCain's thinking" doesn't count. She's a maverick.. she should be able to tell me what magazine's she reads and what her specific plan is for the future.. because based on the odds.. McCain doesn't have much longer to live.

There is the way things are and there is the way things should be. I deal with the way things are and pass judgments later.

Well...it is a secrete to me. What economic policies are you talking about - we can start a new thread if that would help?

Remember Dot Com bubble, remember Enron, World Com. the seeds of Fannie and Freddie started under Clinton.

I read your posts..and I wonder if Glenn Beck is a member here.

I cannot continue with this any longer.. the mere fact that you state 'there is the way things are and there is the way things should be" really doesn't make me want to engage in anything of this nature with you, especially when it comes down to the second in command and what the role is and the clear abuse. That's absurd.

Her objective was to communicate to me, not you. That was her job. I am a conservative who did not support McCain, I don't like McCain, I had no enthusiasm for McCain and could have easily voted for Bob Barr.

Me trying to tell you her points would be pointless. In fact my wife was getting pissed off when Palin was winking at me...I am like - come on Sarah, be more discreet.:)

I don't follow any party affiliation.. and there is no way I could view her as any sort of qualified for this position.

You don't get the point, and I think that is part of the problem. If I were in Congress dealing with Chaney I would have put him in check. The Democrats did not do it, they did not understand who Chaney was, they underestimated Chaney and Bush and they let things go. And you are upset with me, gee.:confused::confused::confused:
-----Added 3/10/2008 at 04 : 18 : 11-----
...government of the people, for the people, by the people. Our system of government is designed to be run by regular people. Your attitude regarding "qualifications" seems to be elitists in my view.

maybe I did misread your point.. I do that quite often..and probably should have asked you for clarification.

I don't think anyone..and this includes conservatives understood or still understand who Cheney is. He's dangerous. However, at least the democratic side now acknowledges this.. and Palin did not. Because she did not understand the question or the position, she merely took the easy road and agreed that he was correct in his stance. It's eerily similar to the whole "bush doctrine" question.

It's "Cheney."

I wonder how this strategy would work on the Republican front. Especially considering they have long been saying that Obama isn't qualified.

How about this. Palin is not a Washington insider. She has a full-time job as governor. She is a mother and a wife. To suggest that she has to know everything about Washington inside politics is a bit extreme. Again, focus on the future, not the past.

lol can you read? I said they would give them an increasing amount of responsibility. A baby doesn't learn to walk in a day. At the same time a baby will never learn to walk if the parents never put them on the ground.

I remember Clinton saying that. I remember Biden saying that. I remember the 3 a.m. ad by Clinton. I don't remember anything like that coming from McCain or Republicans other than Hannity and Limbaugh.

I find it abhorrent that we're still in Iraq after their government has politely and not so politely asked us to kindly wipe our feet on the way out. At some point it crosses the line from helping them rebuild to overstaying our welcome and forcing ourselves on them.

The point is - the artificial time frame. What if the child needs 17 months...12 months...19 months. I support assessing the situation and responding to conditions.

The Iraqis themselves have been demanding a timeframe for the last soldier out the door for months now.

She may not be a Washington insider but she is definitely a dishonest corrupt political insider who tends to walk over others to get what she wants. Look at her history in Alaska and you will see a history of her getting close to someone under the guise of friendship and then stabbing them in the back and taking their spot. The worst part is she has no problem abusing her power to enact revenge on others. This is why she is being investigated in Alaska (an investigation that started long before her VP prospectives). And just a few days ago an insurance company testified that they were forced to deny the troopers health benefits by Palin under the thread that they would lose their contract.
-----Added 3/10/2008 at 04 : 32 : 55-----

No the point is that you need to start making progress twoard them taking control and we haven't been doing that. People perform their best when they are under pressure. I'm a phd student and I know first hand that if there aren't paper deadlines the papers don't get written. As soon as there is a submission deadline the papers magically start to appear.

What Rekna says can't be overstated enough. I don't know why MORE people aren't jumping on that. If it had been Obama doing this you guys would be -all- over him. And I wouldn't be defending him, either.

Do you have any teenage or pre-teen children? They always think they are ready before they really are, sometimes the adult has to be the adult. We have invested too much in Iraq, to turn the country over before they can really handle it. Yes, that is "unfair", but I am the adult.:shakehead:
-----Added 3/10/2008 at 04 : 39 : 13-----
We are making progress. And my original question was regarding Obama's position on the consequences of failure? If 16 months come and they need more help, what is he going to do?

...

They're not a baby. Or a teenager.

They're a sovereign COUNTRY. Filled with ADULTS.

If they say out, we get out.

As for your answer, no, I'm 20. I do not have children. But I don't view Iraq as America's child. I view it as a potential ally that we rescued from a cruel dictator, and that is kindly telling us it can stand on its own two feet now.

Ace a person will never learn to swim if they don't first get in the water.

There are consequences to failure. It is more complicated than them saying get out and then we leave. If we leave and need to go back later, then our efforts failed.

Doesn't matter. They're a sovereign nation. If we're going to invade and conquer it, fine. If we're going to leave, fine. But be honest about our intentions, whatever the scenario.

Here is another analogy. How many parents out there have had teenagers who refused to grow up and get a job. They ended up being 24, no job, living at home with their parents. At some point the parent needs to kick the kid out and make them stand on their own.

You can cry about artificial timelines all you want but there is something to be said about pressuring them to do more than they are.

True. Put them in the water, teach them, work with them, give them tools to learn, be supportive...but you don't let them fail. The cost of failure is too high. I just want someone on the left to address that issue regarding Iraq.

This is a flawed logic. There is no way to predict the future. To say that we need to remain there 'just in case' is simply doing neither party any good and simply undermines any original ideal that may or may not have been in place to begin with.

Our efforts are not to make them perfect.. our efforts are supposedly to make them a democratic state.. we've accomplished that. We should be out.

Whatever our original intentions are, we're in someone else's house and they've asked us to leave.

...I don't see the point of argument. If we're going to say 'it's our house now', FINE. Then say it! But we're not. We're hemming and hawing all we want to stay there until they clean their house the way we want them to. But until we pull out our handgun and go 'nope, we're not leaving til this place is shipshape', we don't have any reason to still be there.

Whatever you do, be blunt about it.

Withdrawing troops does not mean we will fail and there is no evidence that if we withdraw slowly everything will go to hell over there.

Also sure we could stay there forever. But what happens if staying there causes us to go into a great depression and we have to pull out because we are broke? Iraq is killing our economy. We are paying for the war on credit and credit always catches up to people.

Our intention is to have a another friendly democratic nation in the middle east. Our long term strategic interests in the Middle East are best served by having a strong democratic Iraq. We are entangled in these issues and have been since WWII. If your generation can unwind these entanglements, you will have my support. But, Obama's approach seems a bit naive and doomed to failure in my opinion..

When asked about her foreign policy experience, Governor Sarah Palin responded that she could see Russia from her house. You know what level of intellect could muster than kind of response just as well as I do. To call her anything but an incarnation of the word moron is dishonest.

Could she win? Yes, but that should scare you just as much as it does me. Idiots shouldn't ever be elected for any reason. They should do work that doesn't need intellect.

Never said "just in case", and I agree that they don't need to be perfect. We have a difference of opinion regarding their readiness. However, when we do leave what would you do if al qaeda takes the country over, if Iran takes the country over, if Iran attacks Isreal?
-----Added 3/10/2008 at 04 : 57 : 20-----
Biden said that FDR addressed the nation on television?!? I don't call him a moron.
Obama said he visited 57 states?!? I don't call him a moron.

I think both parties have been pretty clear on their stances with both Iran and Israel.

if you want to end al qaeda, then we need to go back into Afghanistan and push them out.. and possibly even Pakistan. Pakistan right now is far more dangerous than Iran. Iran's pres (I can't spell it, not going to attempt to) has no control over the military there.

@Ace: Everyone makes mistakes. Politicians are in the public eye, therefore their slipups are recorded and are never forgiven by the opposite side.

Please, in all honesty, compare the magnitude and frequency of the gaffes of the entire Democratic ticket vs. JUST palin (not even including McCain).

FDR did go on TV to discuss the New Deal, which was his way of fixing the Great Depression. No where in his response did Biden say that FDR was speaking in 1929. Even if he did mean what conservatives insist he meant, he only said it once. Palin said what she said numerous times.
Yeah, that was a funny slip. Fortunately it was pretty clear he misspoke and he currently isn't under the impression there are 57 or 59 states. Governor Palin still believes that seeing Russia from her house (btw, you can't see Russia from continental Alaska, which makes her twice as wrong) demonstrates that she has foreign policy experience.