Forum Index
»
Political Discussion
Let me hear from you repubs. What are your reasons for voting for McSame..
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
Dude, Slow down! Reread the post! I'm voting for Obama! For exactly the reasons you mention. But, because I remember all the good intentions of presidents past who swore they were going to get us out of Viet Nam, I don't feel 100% certain that Obama will do a better job of it than McCain. But I think he is is a better bet. Getting us into a quagmire (thanks W!) was a lot easier than getting us out of it is going to be. |
jsteele
Site Admin Offline
Site Admin Offline
My apologies. For some reason I read it as "I'm not voting for Obama". By this time of the day my eyes are pretty shot. By the way, I expect that Obama will get us out and for the next 100 years will be blamed losing Iraq. There will be a series of movies in which Sylvester Stallone's grandchild plays the role of an Iraq War veteran who repeatedly defeats the Iraqi insurgents single-handedly -- the entire time disparaging Obama as a defeatist. Obama will sacrifice his place in history in order to get us out of this war. |
Anonymous
|
100 years and residual forces
The "100 years" comment has been distorted. It was not "mere apologists" who suggested McCain was speaking about a military presence like the presence in South Korea (50 years) and the presence in Japan (60 years). If you listen to the original quote you'll find that McCain himself spoke made the remark in the context of maintaining a presence and being "fine" with that presence so long as Americans are not being killed and the purpose is to defend Americans against al Qaeda. The You Tube "100 years" footage is here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFknKVjuyNk Interestingly, Obama has made a very similar comment. In a NY Times op-ed he said he that after his troop withdrawl, he would maintain a residual force to fight Al Qaeda. Obama should be asked how long he would maintain his residual force. The Obama op ed is here http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/14/opinion/14obama.html?_r=1&oref=slogin |
jsteele
Site Admin Offline
Site Admin Offline
Let's accept your argument that McCain's 100 year force is the same as Obama's residual force. I don't necessary believe that, but let's accept it for the sake of argument. In any case, both situations involve little to no fighting and to the extent that there is fighting, its with al-Qaida. The question that I posed -- how long will McCain keep forces in Iraq while there is fighting going on? -- is still not answered. Can anyone answer? If the current situation does not improve, how long is McCain willing to keep forces there? This is an important question and nobody seems able to answer it. |
Anonymous
Apology accepted! I understand how these things happen. I can't figure out whether to laugh or cry at your speculation about Sylvester Stallone's grandchild. I hope your prediction won't become reality but I fear it will. |
Anonymous
|
Regrettably, the New York Times refused to publish McCain's op-ed on Iraq, after publishing Obama's. McCain's op-ed thus appeared in the New York Post. It's here, for anyone interested:
http://www.nypost.com/php/pfriendly/print.php?url=http://www.nypost.com/seven/07222008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/getting_iraq_right_120904.htm |
jsteele
Site Admin Offline
Site Admin Offline
As is often the case with op-ed pieces, the NYT asked for certain revisions. Specifically in this case, the newspaper asked McCain to define what he meant by "victory". McCain was not able to do it. Also, McCain's article contains a blatant falsehood. McCain writes, Obama "makes it sound as if Maliki has endorsed his timetable - when the Iraqi prime minister has merely said that he'd like a plan for the eventual withdrawal of US troops at some unspecified future point.". Indeed Maliki explicitly endorsed Obama's timetable in an interview with Der Spiegel. The remarks, in Arabic, were translated by Maliki's own translator. A recording of the interview was reviewed by translators working for the Times and, independently, the Washington Post. Both translators agreed the translation was accurate. There is no disputing this point, yet our favorite straight-talking maverick simply doesn't want to admit the truth. |
Anonymous
|
Yes, but do remember that Maliki and the Iraqis were walking back Maliki's comments for quite awhile, until the tape surfaced. Maliki claimed that it was a mistranslation until then, and I think McCain's op-ed came out before the tape was made available. I'm sure you see it as a deliberate distortion on McCain's part, but it may also be an error. Witness the coverage of Obama's "undivided Jerusalem" statement.
As a side note, I can't believe Der Spiegel allows subjects to edit interviews. That's astonishing. |
Anonymous
|
I am the 22:52 poster. If you don't think the residual force idea is the same as McCain's, what's the difference? They are both saying they envision troops who will maintain a presence after active combat, that is during a time of stability to confront Al Qaeda.
I am opposed to the war but do believe that having undertaken this unjust war, there are responsibilities to the Iraqis to stabilize the area. With respect to McCain v Obama on this, I do believe less specificity is more strategic and realistic. McCain has not announced a time frame. But Obama has a timetable for withdrawl and then a plan for residual troops to remain. But you can't just publish a schedule to the enemy, withdraw according to the schedule and then leave residual troops. They'll be killed. You can only leave residual troops when the area is safe. And only people on the ground will know when the area is safe. No one knows when the fighting will end. We can only keep praying that it will end soon. I also think it sets a terrible precedent for a withdrawl to happen because of public opinion and will. I have never supported this war but if the US leaves because of public pressures at home, it will once again show the bad guys that the American public cannot "stomach" fighting. If you take a look at the 9/11 Commission report you will see that this is very much on minds of terrorists. They think that if they can kill enough American's, Americans will tire and cave into whatever they want. See the report here http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/pdf/sec2.pdf at pages 47-48 (discussion of Somalia). (And by this later point, I am not trying to suggest that the original war in Iraq was justly undertaken to fight terrorists and I don't write this lightly. I know the mother and father of someone who was killed in Iraq and I know the the depth of their grief. ) |
Anonymous
|
Everyone talks about how much more experience McCain has over Obama.
No one talks or speculates as to what the gulf between their IQs might be. I'd say at least 20 points. Maybe more. McCain keeps making mistakes with regard to very fundamental things. He thinks there is a border between Iraq and Pakistan. He needs Lieberman to explain to him the difference between the two opposing forces in Iraq. He "jokes" about killing Iraqi civilians by importing cigarettes. And let's not forget "Bomb Bomb Iran!" Obama is a great, inspirational and persuasive speaker. McCain is a poor and boring speaker. Obama is cool and collected. McCain is well-known for his hot and unpredicatable temper. But really it's the difference in IQ. Obama is just so much smarter than McCain -- no amount of "experience" could close that gulf for me. I hear people talk about how military service should be a requirement to be President, but less and less about how important it is to have a smart person as President. If you were arrested on charges of murder and faced the death penalty, who would you rather have on your side: Clinton or Bush? Gore or Bush? Obama or Bush? It's a no-brainer. Shouldn't the President of the United States be exceptionally smart? I don't care how long McCain was a POW. It's not germane to anything at issue in this election. |
Anonymous
Absolutely agree. He was a POW, so what? If he didn't have a hot temper before, it certainly affected it now, to the point of calling his wife a whore in public, in front of a bunch of journalists. That action in itself speaks volumes to me. |
Anonymous
|
to 15:03 poster...I am sure you are not going to like the fact that President Bush had higher grades in college than Senator Kerry. So I am not sure what grades or IQ has to do with it? And do you know what the IQ scores are of each?
I am certainly not choosing my President on how cool they are or if they can deliver a good speech written by someone else. This is the problem with this election...all the people caught up in celebrity and "change" and "hope" and not looking at experince. And people should care that McCain was a POW. It is people like him who got the "you know what" beaten out of him every day for five years so that you have the freedom to say whatever you want. And I have never heard that McCain called his wife a whore in public in front of journalists. Must be the same internet rumors that are often made about Obama. |
Anonymous
I agree that Obama is far smarter than McCain, and I think he would be a better president than McCain. However, looking at prior presidents, I'm not sure a high IQ alone is that helpful. Jimmy Carter is undoubtedly one of the most intelligent men to hold the office, but he was an ineffectual president. And Bill Clinton is extremely intelligent -- and I think he was a good president -- but his narcissistic personality style led him to some truly terrible decisionmaking in relation to his. . . er, relations. In the sexual sense, that is. In general I am a huge fan of intelligence, don't get me wrong. For Carter, however, it wasn't enough. Obama has other skills that are also essential, so he'll avoid the traps Carter faced. And I am quite sure he will avoid Bill Clinton's problems, too. He's a disciplined man, as far as I can tell. So ideally, yes, the president should be exceptionally smart, but that alone is not enough to ensure either election or a successful presidency. Fortunately, Obama has many other strengths besides his intelligence. |
Anonymous
What he actually called his wife in public and in front of reporters is a "cunt". He doesn't even deny it when given the opportunity, because he knows there are three reporters who heard him. So he just says that some people in the audience don't like that language, and therefore it's best to change the subject. I wonder how many times Obama has called his wife a cunt. |
Anonymous
|
And beyond the blogs...where is this reported in real journalism that McCain called his wife this name? I never heard this until I just read it here. And there a lot of things that have been written on the internet about about Obama that just aren't true either so I would check your sources.
But I also think that once again we are getting off topic...the OP asked why people were supporting McCain and there have been some very good reasons laid out here. |