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

Jhud -> RE: Is McCain in the land of far, far, away? (4/21/2008 2:58:54 PM)
quote: 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. None of which contradicts the notion that we shouldn’t abandon Iraq at this time; indeed, most of this would be a good argument to stay, which by every indication is McCain’s plan.

RichLP -> RE: Is McCain in the land of far, far, away? (4/21/2008 3:04:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud quote: 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. None of which contradicts the notion that we shouldn’t abandon Iraq at this time; indeed, most of this would be a good argument to stay, which by every indication is McCain’s plan. McCain is either dishonest or ignorant. Either one makes him problematic - as do all the other points about his statements on Iraq I've discussed here. And as for bloodshed, it's odd that McCain would be so concerned with it when he supported the very war that has brought about colossal bloodshed in Iraq even WITH the US military presence... never mind what he says about Al Qaeda, Iran...

Jhud -> RE: Is McCain in the land of far, far, away? (4/21/2008 3:20:57 PM)
quote: McCain is either dishonest or ignorant. Either one makes him problematic - as do all the other points about his statements on Iraq I've discussed here. And as for bloodshed, it's odd that McCain would be so concerned with it when he supported the very war that has brought about colossal bloodshed in Iraq even WITH the US military presence... never mind what he says about Al Qaeda, Iran... All of which might be wrangled over, but doesn't matter because we are there now, and present an ameliorating presence to the conflict that will certainly expand if we leave.

RichLP -> RE: Is McCain in the land of far, far, away? (4/21/2008 3:33:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud quote: McCain is either dishonest or ignorant. Either one makes him problematic - as do all the other points about his statements on Iraq I've discussed here. And as for bloodshed, it's odd that McCain would be so concerned with it when he supported the very war that has brought about colossal bloodshed in Iraq even WITH the US military presence... never mind what he says about Al Qaeda, Iran... All of which might be wrangled over, but doesn't matter because we are there now, and present an ameliorating presence to the conflict that will certainly expand if we leave. At best, the US military presence is simply postponing the future characteristics of what is a complex civil war scenario, but the argument can be made that we're intensifying it by siding with the Shiite-led regime. At worst, it is contributing to more hatred that will explode eventually. As I've said: horrific violence was caused by our invasion. If McCain maintains horrific violence is to be avoided, he shouldn't have supported the invasion. And, based strictly on what he says in public about Iraq, the man is either ignorant or needs to do his homework - because he apparently doesn't speak about how the US military (and if we're going to be technical, the contractors) is practically the strongest of several militias in Iraq and therefore a participant in the violence (even if our goals are benevolent).

Jhud -> RE: Is McCain in the land of far, far, away? (4/21/2008 3:41:12 PM)
quote: At best, the US military presence is simply postponing the future characteristics of what is a complex civil war scenario, but the argument can be made that we're intensifying it by siding with the Shiite-led regime. At worst, it is contributing to more hatred that will explode eventually. I would say there is no objective evidence of that, and much history to suggest that leaving will make it worse. quote: As I've said: horrific violence was caused by our invasion. If McCain maintains horrific violence is to be avoided, he shouldn't have supported the invasion. And, based strictly on what he says in public about Iraq, the man is either ignorant or needs to do his homework - because he apparently doesn't speak about how the US military (and if we're going to be technical, the contractors) is practically the strongest of several militias in Iraq and therefore a participant in the violence (even if our goals are benevolent). Well, yes, we could all blame the Senators that supported the initial war (Clinton, Kerry, McCain, et al.) but that doesn't really inform us as how to proceed.

RichLP -> RE: Is McCain in the land of far, far, away? (4/21/2008 3:56:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud I would say there is no objective evidence of that, and much history to suggest that leaving will make it worse. The fact that we sided with one sect and angered another is evidence enough. quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud Well, yes, we could all blame the Senators that supported the initial war (Clinton, Kerry, McCain, et al.) but that doesn't really inform us as how to proceed. McCain’s inconsistency and poor grasp of the facts is made worse by his failure to tell us about how victory will be achieved. He may talk of staying the course and keeping the troops there while necessary, but he offers nothing of substance re: a political solution. In early April, McCain said that the influence of Moqtada al-Sadr’s “influence has been on the wane for a long time,” even though al-Sadr’s influence was clearly seen in his ceasefire from mid-2007 that was a direct cause of the lower casualties in Iraq since that time. If this man’s influence was on the wane despite his successful standing up to Al-Maliki’s ultimatum that the Mahdi Army disarm AND his continued resistance to Maliki’s forces, who were assisted by US and UK military power, then one wonder what it’d have been like in the Basra battle had al-Sadr’s influence been on the RISE. Also regarding the battle of Basra and al-Sadr, McCain stated, “Apparently it was Sadr who asked for the cease-fire, declared a cease-fire. It wasn’t Maliki. Very rarely do I see the winning side declare a cease-fire.” And yet again McCain got his facts wrong: it was Maliki who sued for a cease-fire; the Mahdi Army kept fighting and nothing shows it would have stopped. It kept its arms and al-Sadr won a major political victory. How does the failure of the central Iraqi government forces to disarm and to defeat a militia show that we are winning, as McCain stated in the GOP debates? These are more samples of McCain’s departure from reality re: Iraq. McCain claims we’re going to achieve military victory but he presents absolutely no concrete, detailed plan as to how that objective will be achieved other than “stay the course.” His statements may be emotionally stirring, but they present scant details of how under a McCain presidency, US policy in Iraq would achieve "victory." If anything, I’d say that doing the same thing repeatedly and to then hope for a different result may border on insanity, not just hubris. And, as I said, if McCain hates the idea of bloodshed in Iraq, perhaps he could say something about how his support of the war caused problems there. But he's a politician - it's hard to expect an admission of mistakes from politicians.

Jhud -> RE: Is McCain in the land of far, far, away? (4/21/2008 4:58:32 PM)
quote: The fact that we sided with one sect and angered another is evidence enough. Well, the Shia gained power because in a democracy the majority tend have more power than the minority; there was no changing that. But we have also worked with the Sunnis as well. quote: McCain’s inconsistency and poor grasp of the facts is made worse by his failure to tell us about how victory will be achieved. He may talk of staying the course and keeping the troops there while necessary, but he offers nothing of substance re: a political solution. In early April, McCain said that the influence of Moqtada al-Sadr’s “influence has been on the wane for a long time,” even though al-Sadr’s influence was clearly seen in his ceasefire from mid-2007 that was a direct cause of the lower casualties in Iraq since that time. If this man’s influence was on the wane despite his successful standing up to Al-Maliki’s ultimatum that the Mahdi Army disarm AND his continued resistance to Maliki’s forces, who were assisted by US and UK military power, then one wonder what it’d have been like in the Basra battle had al-Sadr’s influence been on the RISE. Also regarding the battle of Basra and al-Sadr, McCain stated, “Apparently it was Sadr who asked for the cease-fire, declared a cease-fire. It wasn’t Maliki. Very rarely do I see the winning side declare a cease-fire.” And yet again McCain got his facts wrong: it was Maliki who sued for a cease-fire; the Mahdi Army kept fighting and nothing shows it would have stopped. It kept its arms and al-Sadr won a major political victory. How does the failure of the central Iraqi government forces to disarm and to defeat a militia show that we are winning, as McCain stated in the GOP debates? These are more samples of McCain’s departure from reality re: Iraq. McCain claims we’re going to achieve military victory but he presents absolutely no concrete, detailed plan as to how that objective will be achieved other than “stay the course.” His statements may be emotionally stirring, but they present scant details of how under a McCain presidency, US policy in Iraq would achieve "victory." If anything, I’d say that doing the same thing repeatedly and to then hope for a different result may border on insanity, not just hubris. And, as I said, if McCain hates the idea of bloodshed in Iraq, perhaps he could say something about how his support of the war caused problems there. But he's a politician - it's hard to expect an admission of mistakes from politicians. We could quibble over which politician has the best grasp of the intricacies of the Iraqi situation; but this doesn’t change the notion that an immediate withdrawal is a bad idea. You don’t have to agree with McCain to see this, many of those who are more than familiar with the situation, like Gen. Petraeus, say the same thing.

RichLP -> RE: Is McCain in the land of far, far, away? (4/21/2008 5:11:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud Well, the Shia gained power because in a democracy the majority tend have more power than the minority; there was no changing that. But we have also worked with the Sunnis as well. I think you once wrote here about how Iraq was turning into a democracy as Iraqis went to the polls. And to the polls Iraqis did go - some of them. Elections were boycotted by certain segments, and those who were left out of power viewed the results as confirmation that our presence was out to keep them on the sidelines. In other words, even by attempting to implement democracy, we still fueled Iraqi resentment and anger at us. Certainly a strong case that by having sided with one side (the Shia) and left another out (the Sunnis), that we are intensifying sectarian strife, as I state stated. And by neglecting the complex history of Iraq (one of the most complex nations in the region) we set ourselves up for myriad problems - one of them being the Sunni-led insurgency, which caused violence, which added to the violence we ourselves started, etc... and on it goes about how bad things are there thanks to our military presence taking sides. quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud We could quibble over which politician has the best grasp of the intricacies of the Iraqi situation; but this doesn’t change the notion that an immediate withdrawal is a bad idea. You don’t have to agree with McCain to see this, many of those who are more than familiar with the situation, like Gen. Petraeus, say the same thing. In all fairness, it's hardly a matter of whether or not "we could quibble over which politician has the best grasp of the intricacies of the Iraqi situation." No one here has refuted my assertions about how McCain's statements are not backed by facts. Anyone participant of this discussion who could do so - by showing the other participants of the thread that McCain's comments are factually correct - would have done so already. McCain's assertions about Iraq - those I've referred to in several posts here - are false. As for "immediate withdrawal," that's something McCain (and Clinton and Obama) knows to be practically impossible. A vote getter (along with the "victory" line) IMO.

Jhud -> RE: Is McCain in the land of far, far, away? (4/21/2008 5:25:06 PM)
quote: I think you once wrote here about how Iraq was turning into a democracy as Iraqis went to the polls. And to the polls Iraqis did go - some of them. Elections were boycotted by certain segments, and those who were left out of power viewed the results as confirmation that our presence was out to keep them on the sidelines. In other words, even by attempting to implement democracy, we still fueled Iraqi resentment and anger at us. Certainly a strong case that by having sided with one side (the Shia) and left another out (the Sunnis), that we are intensifying sectarian strife, as I state stated. And by neglecting the complex history of Iraq (one of the most complex nations in the region) we set ourselves up for myriad problems - one of them being the Sunni-led insurgency, which caused violence, which added to the violence we ourselves started, etc... and on it goes about how bad things are there thanks to our military presence taking sides. Well, a much larger segment of Iraqis voted than almost ever do in the US. And your argument is tantamount to "Democracy is bad because not everyone wins"; of course, that leaves us with a dictatrship, where no one wins. But all of this is still irrelevant to an immediate withdrawal. Until you show that such a thing is good and will provide stability in the area and alleviate tensions with Iran while reducing it's drive to produce nukes, it really has nothing to do with prefering McCain over a Democratic alternative. quote: As for "immediate withdrawal," that's something McCain (and Clinton and Obama) knows to be practically impossible. A vote getter (along with the "victory" line) IMO. That is essentially what Obama is claiming he will do; I suppose I could just assume he is a liar, but that doesn't elevate him in my mind..

lightshineon -> RE: Is McCain in the land of far, far, away? (4/21/2008 6:14:29 PM)
Well, let us wake old man McCain and ask him his opinion[;)]

RichLP -> RE: Is McCain in the land of far, far, away? (4/21/2008 7:50:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud Well, a much larger segment of Iraqis voted than almost ever do in the US. And your argument is tantamount to "Democracy is bad because not everyone wins"; of course, that leaves us with a dictatrship, where no one wins. No. Previously I said that "At best, the US military presence is simply postponing the future characteristics of what is a complex civil war scenario, but the argument can be made that we're intensifying it by siding with the Shiite-led regime. At worst, it is contributing to more hatred that will explode eventually." You replied by saying there was no objective evidence, and when I said the US support of the Shia was sufficient evidence, you alluded to democracy and majority rule. I then said that by implementing a democratic system, the results were the further alienation of a group whose help we needed to make a post-Saddam Iraq at least somewhat unified and free of chaos, minus any immediate postbellum acts of anarchy. Now you say that I am saying that "democracy is bad because not everyone wins" - which is something I never said nor implied. I did say that the use of elections in Iraq further solidified the sectarian divisions within a population many of whose members already saw as occupiers. And since we're still supporting the Shiite government of PM N. Al-Maliki, we are effectively perpetuating sectarian tensions in Iraq. quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud But all of this is still irrelevant to an immediate withdrawal. Until you show that such a thing is good and will provide stability in the area and alleviate tensions with Iran while reducing it's drive to produce nukes, it really has nothing to do with prefering McCain over a Democratic alternative. Iraq has no tensions with Iran. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad recently visited Baghdad and didn't even need an armed escort, and while he was there being hosted by al-Maliki, he took shots at us while our soldiers were in the Green Zone. If anything, we made Iran the strongest power in the region sans Israel thanks to our removal of their greatest foe (the Baath regime). Iraq is enough of a mess to deal with (in great part thanks to our government's actions), and Iraq and Iran are now friendly with each other. quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud That is essentially what Obama is claiming he will do; I suppose I could just assume he is a liar, but that doesn't elevate him in my mind.. Not every politician follows through with all of his/her campaign promises - George H. W. Bush said no new taxes, but did he follow through? Besides, immediate withdrawal is an impossibility. McCain, Clinton, and Obama all know this - what they tell the people whose votes they want is another matter altogether.

RichLP -> RE: Is McCain in the land of far, far, away? (4/21/2008 7:52:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lightshineon Well, let us wake old man McCain and ask him his opinion[;)] My dear sister Lightshineon, I don't think we should bother. If the man thinks it's no big deal for him to make grossly inaccurate statements regarding Iraq, Iran, and Al Qaeda, he won't listen to a bunch of Christians from Crosswalk. He'd just say that we are quibbling about the intricacies of Iraq. [;)]

lightshineon -> RE: Is McCain in the land of far, far, away? (4/21/2008 8:57:25 PM)
Well lets unfreeze, and see.[;)] quote: ORIGINAL: RichLP quote: ORIGINAL: lightshineon Well, let us wake old man McCain and ask him his opinion[;)] My dear sister Lightshineon, I don't think we should bother. If the man thinks it's no big deal for him to make grossly inaccurate statements regarding Iraq, Iran, and Al Qaeda, he won't listen to a bunch of Christians from Crosswalk. He'd just say that we are quibbling about the intricacies of Iraq. [;)]

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI