Why I will vote or John McCain

[Andrew in CA]

Stability in Iraq = victory.

 

Define stability- a functioning democracy.

 

Define functioning democracy- able to have fee elections. Am I the only one who remembers Bush championing the first Iraqi election as the tipping point for functioning democracy? That was three years ago.

But the question then is: what if that democracy doesn't want to be friends with the USA? What if it wants to nationalize its oil, what if it wants to ally with Iran or China? Will we accept it?

I want victory- I want a stable, democratic Iraq that can be a friend to the USA on its own accord. I just doubt that this is feasible.

[scribo]

well, today's IBD/IBB poll says Obama +3.5

 

And instead of focusing on the lone poll that shows your favorite closing in, you should really be paying attention to the electoral college votes. Even the people that are closest to McCain admit he ABSOLUTELY HAS TO TAKE Ohio, North Carolina, Florida and probably Nevada, as in all of them and there's little or no chance of that.

No thank you. That would be depressing, and who wants to be depressed on a Friday? The Friday before the Bills squish the stinkin' fish.

[The Big Cat]

But the question then is: what if that democracy doesn't want to be friends with the USA? What if it wants to nationalize its oil, what if it wants to ally with Iran or China? Will we accept it?

I want victory- I want a stable, democratic Iraq that can be a friend to the USA on its own accord. I just doubt that this is feasible.

 

No argument here.

[scribo]

I have a question scribo that actually doesnt have anything to do with Obama or McCain

 

How exactly are we going to win the war?

 

I was committed when I served in the military (served in Operation Desert Shield) but I am now of the opinion that the war as we are fighting it right now is not winnable.

 

If there is an obtainable victory then of course I think we should see it through.....but this is different. I am now thinking that we could stay there for the next 100 years....and we STILL would not gain a victory as we describe it.

 

- We lose our soldiers nearly daily

- The enemy replenishes itself though the borders of the country

- We are in a recession but spend quite a bit of money on this war

 

Now to talk about the presidents.......people talk about this and that......Sarah Palin, being a muslem, knowing or not knowing economic issues.....but in MY opinion the war is what is going to be the single biggest reason in who wins and loses.

 

People are sick of the state of the country...and people who dont have a full understanding of all the issues (like me) point at the things that they CAN see......and that is the war in Iraq.

 

Obama is going to win

 

The Big Cat did a decent job at answering; although, I would definitely add that the goal is not merely establishing a functional democracy but establishing a self-sustainable, functional democracy.

 

Is it possible? It has to be. What is the alternative? Allow it to be overtaken by terrorists? Iran? Is there a difference? No, we must have win.

 

How are we going to win? We need to continue fighting these terrorists, continue training Iraqi forces so they can defend their own country, and we need to keep pressure on other countries helping those terrorists replenishing the enemy in Iraq.

 

I also want to note KIAs are down considerably, and troops are not dying daily. There have been 6 American KIAs this month, 24 days into the month. That is still too many, but it down from 30 last October.

[scribo]

But the question then is: what if that democracy doesn't want to be friends with the USA? What if it wants to nationalize its oil, what if it wants to ally with Iran or China? Will we accept it?

I want victory- I want a stable, democratic Iraq that can be a friend to the USA on its own accord. I just doubt that this is feasible.

If we can get democracy to stick, it is feasible to have a relationship with Iraq similar to the ones we have with Kuwait, Qatar and UAE, other somewhat progressive Middle Eastern nations.

[The Big Cat]

The Big Cat did a decent job at answering; although, I would definitely add that the goal is not merely establishing a functional democracy but establishing a self-sustainable, functional democracy.

 

Is it possible? It has to be. What is the alternative? Allow it to be overtaken by terrorists? Iran? Is there a difference? No, we must have win.

 

How are we going to win? We need to continue fighting these terrorists, continue training Iraqi forces so they can defend their own country, and we need to keep pressure on other countries helping those terrorists replenishing the enemy in Iraq.

 

I also want to note KIAs are down considerably, and troops are not dying daily. There have been 6 American KIAs this month, 24 days into the month. That is still too many, but it down from 30 last October.

 

The problem is, Scribo, that we're NOT fighting terrorists there. We're officiating a mosaic of feuds that popped up when Sadaam was ousted.

 

We're not fighting people who want to fight US. we're fighting people to prevent them from fighting themselves!

[Andrew in CA]

If we can get democracy to stick, it is feasible to have a relationship with Iraq similar to the ones we have with Kuwait, Qatar and UAE, other somewhat progressive Middle Eastern nations.

The difference is we haven't overthrown the government in those nations. When the dust settles, so to speak, and if Iraq has a legitimate democracy, I doubt many Iraqis are going to want to be close to us. Some there love us, others hate us, and I tend to think the majority would have mixed feelings and would want to chart an independent course if it is truly an independent democracy. I don't know this to be true, but it seems like the most logical outcome.

[scribo]

What I am reading here is that I live in a nation that lacks the resolve necessary to win in a long, hard war against those who hate Americans and the American way. I am reading that many support Obama simply because they are tired of sacrificing so the war on terrorism can be fought. Sure, you'll come back and say the war in Iraq is not the war on terrorism, that we had no right to go in there to begin with, the Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. Well, this isn't about 9/11. This is about fighting Muslim fanatics who want to destroy America. No one with a clue can say honestly that isn't exactly who we're fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

My fellow Americans aren't being asked to go fight anywhere against their will. We aren't going to impose a draft. Yet the majority, if you believe every poll other than the one I linked to, don't even have the guts to allow other Americans to fight terrorism on their behalf.

 

You can say this is about McCain being a bad boy at the Naval Academy and cheating on his ex-wife decades ago. You can say this about whether he told his captives in Vietnam his dad was an admiral. But it seems to me it about the war. About America not having the stomach for a tough fight.

 

If you vote in Obama and he waves the white flag in the desert, claims we just cannot win, that it would be too hard to win, then we'll end up much like we were after Vietnam. Our service members will return, lick their wounds and figure out other ways to better our nation. But the rest of the world will know America no longer needs to be taken seriously.

 

I wonder what our world would be like of our fathers, grandfathers and great grandfathers said the Japanese and Germans were too tough. That they just didn't see how we could go fight two monstrous forces on separate continents at the same time.

[scribo]

The difference is we haven't overthrown the government in those nations. When the dust settles, so to speak, and if Iraq has a legitimate democracy, I doubt many Iraqis are going to want to be close to us. Some there love us, others hate us, and I tend to think the majority would have mixed feelings and would want to chart an independent course if it is truly an independent democracy. I don't know this to be true, but it seems like the most logical outcome.

But we did over throw the governments in Europe and Japan, no? But I guess Americans were tougher and more determined and more patriotic and less self-centered then. I'm not saying you are self-centered, I don't know you, but I think those who will vote for Obama because they want out of Iraq are.

[scribo]

The problem is, Scribo, that we're NOT fighting terrorists there. We're officiating a mosaic of feuds that popped up when Sadaam was ousted.

 

We're not fighting people who want to fight US. we're fighting people to prevent them from fighting themselves!

That hasn't always been the case. Now that it is, on many levels, that is sign things are going to get better. We were a violently divided nation once, too.

[elegantelliotoffen]

But we did over throw the governments in Europe and Japan, no? But I guess Americans were tougher and more determined and more patriotic and less self-centered then. I'm not saying you are self-centered, I don't know you, but I think those who will vote for Obama because they want out of Iraq are.

 

Didn't Germany and Japan declare war on us?

[Andrew in CA]

But we did over throw the governments in Europe and Japan, no? But I guess Americans were tougher and more determined and more patriotic and less self-centered then. I'm not saying you are self-centered, I don't know you, but I think those who will vote for Obama because they want out of Iraq are.

True, but they were the aggressors in the war, and there was no extended religiously fanatical insurgency civil war following either nations' capitulation. What I'm also saying is that even if a democracy is established there, and we are willing to let it forge its own path, I don't foresee it being a friend of the USA in the same vein of Kuwait and Qatar.

Now, if you want to start being a punk and questioning my patriotism and determination, go ahead, just don't expect to be treated with any amount of respect from anyone that disagrees with you. It seemed like you were able to debate without resorting to ad hominem attacks, but apparently, I was wrong.

PS I've stated it many times but I am not voting for Obama. There are more than 2 choices in this election.

[bills_fan_in_raleigh]

That hasn't always been the case. Now that it is, on many levels, that is sign things are going to get better. We were a violently divided nation once, too.

We still are a very divided nation. Look at this board, listen to the yelling on radio, red states and blue states.

[The Big Cat]

What I am reading here is that I live in a nation that lacks the resolve necessary to win in a long, hard war against those who hate Americans and the American way. I am reading that many support Obama simply because they are tired of sacrificing so the war on terrorism can be fought. Sure, you'll come back and say the war in Iraq is not the war on terrorism, that we had no right to go in there to begin with, the Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. Well, this isn't about 9/11. This is about fighting Muslim fanatics who want to destroy America. No one with a clue can say honestly that isn't exactly who we're fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

My fellow Americans aren't being asked to go fight anywhere against their will. We aren't going to impose a draft. Yet the majority, if you believe every poll other than the one I linked to, don't even have the guts to allow other Americans to fight terrorism on their behalf.

 

You can say this is about McCain being a bad boy at the Naval Academy and cheating on his ex-wife decades ago. You can say this about whether he told his captives in Vietnam his dad was an admiral. But it seems to me it about the war. About America not having the stomach for a tough fight.

 

If you vote in Obama and he waves the white flag in the desert, claims we just cannot win, that it would be too hard to win, then we'll end up much like we were after Vietnam. Our service members will return, lick their wounds and figure out other ways to better our nation. But the rest of the world will know America no longer needs to be taken seriously.

 

I wonder what our world would be like of our fathers, grandfathers and great grandfathers said the Japanese and Germans were too tough. That they just didn't see how we could go fight two monstrous forces on separate continents at the same time.

 

Okay, well you said yourself- at this point we're just policing these internal Feuds in Iraq. This has nothing to do with fighting terrorists. If you want to fight terrorists, you amp up your intelligence, and do a better job domestically of guarding your own a$$. The occupation of Iraq has done nothing, and will do nothing EXCEPT kick the beehive.

 

Now, I get the impression that you believe pulling out now will STENGTHEN their effort against the United States. Well sure, that would be the case if the United States was their number one target. IT'S NOT. They hardly have the means and resources to fight the squabbles nearer and dearer to their hearts which are RELIGIOUS wars, not cultural ones, fought amongst Muslims and against Jews.

 

That's where THEIR priorities lie.

 

Now, you say that pulling out of Iraq will lessen the world's perception of us. Well, news flash: going IN to Iraq already accomplished that. If anything, cutting our losses would raise the world's perception of us, especially amongst our Allies, who we would desperately need, and would surely rely on to monitor Iraq once we're gone. NOTE: monitoring can, in fact, be done without occupation.

 

I've heard this crap about likening this to war efforts in the past- here you mention Japan and Germany. I'm sorry, Scribo, but you're talking out both sides of your mouth. You can't say "we're fighting a war on Terror" and then point the finger at a specific STATE.

 

What we NEED, and what Obama advocates for is the support from states where terrorists are believed to be. The closest thing to "state sponsored terrorism" is harboring terrorists within your borders. The phrase "state sponsored terrorism" by the modern day understanding of the word "terrorism" is fundamentally oxymoronic. If it WERE state sponsored we'd be at war with A STATE. We are not and we have NOT been at war with Iraq.

 

So no, the people who oppose this war, and want out of it, are not cowardly. If you believe this is war we shouldn't have fought in the first place, and you watch the pro-war adovcates stumble all over themselves trying to define "victory" then I say you have a pretty good case to say, "this is stupid, let's end this nonsense." You can't have victory if you can't (unvaguely) define your enemy. It's an uphill battle that we're destined to lose.

 

The terrorists WANT us to fight them, they WANT us to exhaust our resources, thus making our country weaker. By staying in a war with no end in sight, we play right into what benefits them most: a weakened and alienated United States.

[Dan]

...

Senator John McCain has promised that as president he will assure my friends' ultimate sacrifices were meaningful and not in vain. Sen. McCain has promised to bring home my friends who are still fighting with honor when the job is done and this battle is won.

 

...

We all are fortunate enough to have our own opinions and beliefs, so I'll not try to change yours. However, I will offer a few points for thought:

 

1. Anyone that believes we're in Iraq to fight terrorists should really look long and hard at the impending world energy crisis. To send our citizens into battle is one thing, but to be disingenuous about it is quite another.

 

2. We can't leave until the battle is won, is something we hear quite a bit about. However, I urge you to consider that our soldiers are in a part of the world that has been battling since the time of the Pharaohs. To think that we can somehow "win" and bring our troops home in victory is to ignore 1,000's of years of history. How long do we fight for peace in a region that desires no peace?

 

I'm not saying we should do anything with regard to bringing the troops home. I'm merely suggesting that the reasons they're there and the victory they'll achieve are fabrications yet to be entirely fashioned.

[In-A-Gadda-Levitre]

What I am reading here is that I live in a nation that lacks the resolve necessary to win in a long, hard war against those who hate Americans and the American way. I am reading that many support Obama simply because they are tired of sacrificing so the war on terrorism can be fought. Sure, you'll come back and say the war in Iraq is not the war on terrorism, that we had no right to go in there to begin with, the Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. Well, this isn't about 9/11. This is about fighting Muslim fanatics who want to destroy America. No one with a clue can say honestly that isn't exactly who we're fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

My fellow Americans aren't being asked to go fight anywhere against their will. We aren't going to impose a draft. Yet the majority, if you believe every poll other than the one I linked to, don't even have the guts to allow other Americans to fight terrorism on their behalf.

 

You can say this is about McCain being a bad boy at the Naval Academy and cheating on his ex-wife decades ago. You can say this about whether he told his captives in Vietnam his dad was an admiral. But it seems to me it about the war. About America not having the stomach for a tough fight.

 

If you vote in Obama and he waves the white flag in the desert, claims we just cannot win, that it would be too hard to win, then we'll end up much like we were after Vietnam. Our service members will return, lick their wounds and figure out other ways to better our nation. But the rest of the world will know America no longer needs to be taken seriously.

 

I wonder what our world would be like of our fathers, grandfathers and great grandfathers said the Japanese and Germans were too tough. That they just didn't see how we could go fight two monstrous forces on separate continents at the same time.

/soapbox

I would say No, you are reading here that you live in a nation that cannot save Iraq from itself. This is a country that has been constantly overthrown and at war with its neighbors, and within itself since before 600AD. You seem to think that someday we will declare that Iraq has a stable democracy and we walk away in victory, honoring all the brave soldiers that died there for freedom. That's very honorable, but makes you think for a second that any kind of democratic government that is in place will last more than a year or so, if that? What possible evidence do you have that leads you to this conclusion? There's a few centuries of history that say otherwise...

 

Never mind the fact that the vast majority of Americans don't agree with you. They don't like our soldiers there and they want it to end as quick as possible, with no illusions of a long lasting democracy, or what some might call preconditions for victory.

 

Now factor in the cost, and we simply cannot afford to spend $10B a month in 2008 for the spread of democracy in the Middle East when our domestic economy is in the toilet. While the noble fight might have been justifiable as late as 2007, we can no longer allow the drain of that much precious capital that we need to put our own house in order.

 

Lastly our fathers, grandfathers and great grandfathers had the unequivocal support of the free world behind them in the fight against the Japanese and Germans so many years ago. IF, and only IF, we had that kind of support today in Iraq, you might have a chance at achieving that noble goal.

/soapbox off

[bills_fan_in_raleigh]

We all are fortunate enough to have our own opinions and beliefs, so I'll not try to change yours. However, I will offer a few points for thought:

 

1. Anyone that believes we're in Iraq to fight terrorists should really look long and hard at the impending world energy crisis. To send our citizens into battle is one thing, but to be disingenuous about it is quite another.

 

2. We can't leave until the battle is won, is something we hear quite a bit about. However, I urge you to consider that our soldiers are in a part of the world that has been battling since the time of the Pharaohs. To think that we can somehow "win" and bring our troops home in victory is to ignore 1,000's of years of history. How long do we fight for peace in a region that desires no peace?

 

I'm not saying we should do anything with regard to bringing the troops home. I'm merely suggesting that the reasons they're there and the victory they'll achieve are fabrications yet to be entirely fashioned.

Great post. Its amazing how people still can believe the war in Iraq is about Terrorism, remeber Bush and company thought they had WMDs and than tried to make Iraq tied to 9/11. Afghanistan must become the focus on the war on terror.

[jkx2]

But we did over throw the governments in Europe and Japan, no? But I guess Americans were tougher and more determined and more patriotic and less self-centered then. I'm not saying you are self-centered, I don't know you, but I think those who will vote for Obama because they want out of Iraq are.

I think it's ironic you have Pat Tillman as your avatar as you make this point. He believed that we should be out of Iraq. He hated the Bush's policies on Iraq and stated that there was no reason to be in Iraq and there was no winning this war. I believe he was a GREAT hero who did know what was going on and would want nothing to do with John McCain staying in Iraq.

[John from Riverside]

What I am reading here is that I live in a nation that lacks the resolve necessary to win in a long, hard war against those who hate Americans and the American way. I am reading that many support Obama simply because they are tired of sacrificing so the war on terrorism can be fought. Sure, you'll come back and say the war in Iraq is not the war on terrorism, that we had no right to go in there to begin with, the Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. Well, this isn't about 9/11. This is about fighting Muslim fanatics who want to destroy America. No one with a clue can say honestly that isn't exactly who we're fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

My fellow Americans aren't being asked to go fight anywhere against their will. We aren't going to impose a draft. Yet the majority, if you believe every poll other than the one I linked to, don't even have the guts to allow other Americans to fight terrorism on their behalf.

 

You can say this is about McCain being a bad boy at the Naval Academy and cheating on his ex-wife decades ago. You can say this about whether he told his captives in Vietnam his dad was an admiral. But it seems to me it about the war. About America not having the stomach for a tough fight.

 

If you vote in Obama and he waves the white flag in the desert, claims we just cannot win, that it would be too hard to win, then we'll end up much like we were after Vietnam. Our service members will return, lick their wounds and figure out other ways to better our nation. But the rest of the world will know America no longer needs to be taken seriously.

 

I wonder what our world would be like of our fathers, grandfathers and great grandfathers said the Japanese and Germans were too tough. That they just didn't see how we could go fight two monstrous forces on separate continents at the same time.

 

Two things here

 

I am torn on the issue in Iraq.....I dont want to admit losing either. My question is can we WIN. Some here are saying a stable democracy in Iraq would be a win. but how long have we been there? And the bigger question.....if it takes 50 years to actually get the job done (if it ever CAN be done) is that the kind of committment we should be making

 

Second....the refereneces to the Germans and the Japanese. Did we fight those wars alone or did we have allies?

[John from Riverside]

/soapbox

I would say No, you are reading here that you live in a nation that cannot save Iraq from itself. This is a country that has been constantly overthrown and at war with its neighbors, and within itself since before 600AD. You seem to think that someday we will declare that Iraq has a stable democracy and we walk away in victory, honoring all the brave soldiers that died there for freedom. That's very honorable, but makes you think for a second that any kind of democratic government that is in place will last more than a year or so, if that? What possible evidence do you have that leads you to this conclusion? There's a few centuries of history that say otherwise...

 

Never mind the fact that the vast majority of Americans don't agree with you. They don't like our soldiers there and they want it to end as quick as possible, with no illusions of a long lasting democracy, or what some might call preconditions for victory.

 

Now factor in the cost, and we simply cannot afford to spend $10B a month in 2008 for the spread of democracy in the Middle East when our domestic economy is in the toilet. While the noble fight might have been justifiable as late as 2007, we can no longer allow the drain of that much precious capital that we need to put our own house in order.

 

Lastly our fathers, grandfathers and great grandfathers had the unequivocal support of the free world behind them in the fight against the Japanese and Germans so many years ago. IF, and only IF, we had that kind of support today in Iraq, you might have a chance at achieving that noble goal.

/soapbox off

 

I just see that you stated what I did (but much better)