McCain on Obama?s position on Iraq

You must be so blindsighted by the Republican talking points not to recognized all the other events surrounding the timing of the surge is refusing to acknowledge their impact. I'm happy to be called a moron if that mean being skeptical about the wonderful claims perpetuated by the same people who are trying to sell the "surge" as some sort of miracle. I guess I'm not a "believer" like you guys and that makes me a tool. At least I don't blindly correlate events A and B just because they share a similar chronology. You know, you better also take a stance against ice cream sales. Both ice cream sales and murder rates both go up in the Summer. You would have to be a moron not to see that eating ice cream is setting people into a murderous rampage. :S
 
And I'm telling all of you we are coming home, starting in January.



"the US Military has 1.45 million active members "



And none of them are availible to deploy in Iraq. To deny this reality is just plain stupid, and ignorant of the facts.



The millitary is very, very broken. A very dear friend of mine is preparing to be deployed to the gulf to "train". For the fourth time. He's considering retirement. He's not alone.



I will write this again - I am angry because you'll find no more hawkish member on this board, period. And I'm a Dem.



"I do believe that McCain understands what happened when we pulled out of Vietnam too early."



The fact we continued to support one unpopular leader after another in non Communist Vietnam and they couldn't get their act together was totally a non issue in thier failure.



http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/military/etc/lessons.html



General Shelton thought enough of this book to give copies to members of the joint cheifs. This country isn't lacking in idealism. It's lacking a sense of reality. In lots of different ways.
 
Where do you guys get your information about the improved conditions in Iraq since the surge? The same place you learned about the WMD's? The truth is a bunch of people who have never been to Iraq probably don't know squat about what is happening there. I hear very lettle positive about Iraq coming from common enlisted men and women returning from their tours in Iraq. Who should I believe?
 
The "Iraqi citizens" who have made their peace with the US were, as I said, previously insurgents attempting to kill us and get us out of the country. As the <a >Boston Globe reported</a>



<blockquote>Much of the Islamic Army in Iraq, a major Sunni Arab insurgent group that includes former members of Saddam Hussein's Ba'ath Party, has joined the US-led fight against Al Qaeda in Iraq along with Sunni tribesmen and other former insurgents repelled by the terror group's brutality and extremism.</blockquote>
They switched sides because Petreaus gave them what they wanted - a ceasefire, political power, money, and weapons. Surrender and tribute. I'm not knocking the surrender and pay tribute strategy. When you attack the wrong guy - which is what the attack on Iraq was - that's what you *should* do - stop attacking and pay some amount of restitution. I admit to enjoying rubbing the warmonger's noses in the fact that the "surrender monkey" strategy is moral, effective, <b>and</b> what their admired leader is doing. It's true they were Iraqi citizens - which will surprise nobody who's been paying attention because the resistance to the US occupation was almost entirely indigenous.



Al Qaeda in Iraq was not recruited by Bin Laden's organization, did not report to them, and didn't get money from them. They used the same name but that was about it. No close relationship was ever possible because of a profound disagreement on Shias - "Al Qaeda" in Iraq considered them infidels to be destroyed/converted while the real Al Qaeda avoided conflict with them.



Sorry about the linky failure, folks. It works in preview but not on posting :-(
 
No Vas is, of course, right. Our political disagreements are irrelevant to Iraq policy because Bush has broken both the Army's ability to sustain a major occupation and our country's ability to pay for it. They're coming home soon. I assume this is why after taking about 7 different positions in as many days McCain is now supporting a prompt withdrawal plan (Maliki's) indistinguishable from the one Obama has had for years while trying to pretend that he hasn't effectively flip-flopped to supporting Obama's strategy. McCain didn't used to be a fool and he should know this, assuming his wild gyrations on policy reflect flip-floppiness and political opportunism rather than senility.
 
I try to avoid the political threads, but I just can't help myself on this one. I am tired of hearing about Iraq, as it just gets worse and worse regardless of the surge spin. No matter what your political party is, and if you are supporting anyone who supports this debacle, then do not be surprised when your party doesn't win because people are sick and freakin tired of people dieing when the original goal was never accomplished. It is like W and anyone who goes with his flow needs a prescription for Adderall XR with how badly they can be distracted because of their ADD.



Sorry, but I am f*cking pissed, and I wanted Bin Laden's head perched on an M-16. But, instead I got a war, that no one in their right mind wanted because we never finished the war we started, with too many troops and civilians dieing, and bringing Afghanistan back to being the worlds largest heroin poppy producer giving the taliban/al-queda more money, to bring the "war" with Al-Queda to Iraq. Great job... and what has that accomplished? Seriously, where the f*ck is Bin Laden's head? Has anyone fought Bin Laden in Iraq, no... I want to know, has anyone ever seen him in Iraq?



<object width="325" height="250"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/youtube" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="325" height="250"></embed></object>



I am still waiting for what I was promised seven, yes 7 years ago, that Bin laden would be found dead or alive. I vote with my heart and my mind, and my heart is broken and my mind can't take any more of this BS. Take note: I have voted Republican, Democrat, and Libertarian, but there is no way in hell I am voting for anyone who supports the war in Iraq who can't promise and meet that promise to deliver the head of Bin Laden in a plastic bag while supporting the war in Iraq. Otherwise I vote to get the hell out, because the original purpose has never been met, nor will it ever. Anyone who has fallen for this slight of hand should be embarrassed and ashamed they lost track of the original card.



And... guess what? I know several other people just like me who are disappointed the original purpose was never completed. And, guess who they are voting for? Yup, older life long republicans of OC just can't take it any longer, and they are dissenting. Even I am shocked by who some of these people are.
 
[quote author="Failedagent" date=1217300275]Where do you guys get your information about the improved conditions in Iraq since the surge? The same place you learned about the WMD's? The truth is a bunch of people who have never been to Iraq probably don't know squat about what is happening there. I hear very lettle positive about Iraq coming from common enlisted men and women returning from their tours in Iraq. Who should I believe?</blockquote>


FailedAgent, I have never been to Iraq. But I do work on a daily basis with brave and proud Americans who have been, and are going to Iraq. Am I safe in assuming that your talking points are based on actual visits to Iraq that you have made?
 
FairEconomist, it is better to be silent and thought a fool than to speak and remove any doubt.



The insurgents that you claimed we have armed and turned over Iraq to are members of al Qaeda in Iraq. They have been routed by US and Iraqi forces. They are not in control despite what you claim to be true.



You are also wrong about al Qaeda in Iraq. You can read details about Zarqawi's role athttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Musab_al-Zarqawi.



The fact is that the war we waged in March 2003 is over. Saddam Hussein was deposed and democracy is taking root in Iraq.



Since the original war started, it has morphed into the present state. We are fighting the same people that attacked the United States on 9/11/2001. If we weren't fighting them in Iraq, we would be fighting them in Afghanistan and/or the United States. Despite your warped desire, surrendering to al Qaeda would be a tragic mistake.



Also, I don't even know where to begin with your statement about the Army's ability to operate. Prior to President Bush taking office, US armed forces actually trained with blanks instead of live ammunition because budget cuts during the Clinton administration cut so deeply that even basic necessities like bullets weren't purchased. Though I'd have to look up the exact numbers, we were down to something like 39 CALCMs when President Bush took over because Clinton wouldn't replenish supplies when he launched cruise missile strikes to look like he was doing something to contain Saddam Hussein.



The fact is that in late 2002 the will to enforce conditions of the cease fire agreement that stopped hostilities in Iraq in 1991 was falling apart even though Saddam Hussein never complied. Germany, France, and Russia were pushing to end sanctions against Iraq when President Bush addressed the UN in September 2002. But even with sanctions, corruption under the Food for Oil program was rampant, and the very people who voted against an 18th UN sanction against Iraq authorizing force if Iraq didn't comply with the cease fire agreement were on Saddam's payroll. (UN motto: "Stop! Or we will say Stop! again!")



Not only did Hussein allow Zarqawi to operate in Iraq, but Abu Abbas ( who hijacked the Achille Lauro in 1985http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Abbas), Abu Nidal ( executed the attack on the el Al ticket counter at the Leonardo Da Vinci airport in 1985 and the Lockerbie bomb among other thingshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Nidal), Abdul Rahman Yasin ( one of the people behind the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center ) were all being protected by Saddam Hussein. In fact, Saddam Hussein was very open in his support of international terrorism.



While it is popular to say that WMD were the reason behind the war, the truth is far different. The fact is that Iraq didn't comply with the cease fire agreement they entered into in 1991. They were not a sovereign country, and we weren't going to let them screw around anymore. The following text is from President Bush's address to the UN in September 2002. You can find the entire speech athttp://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020912-1.html



If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately and unconditionally forswear, disclose, and remove or destroy all weapons of mass destruction, long-range missiles, and all related material.



If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all support for terrorism and act to suppress it, as all states are required to do by U.N. Security Council resolutions.



If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will cease persecution of its civilian population, including Shi'a, Sunnis, Kurds, Turkomans, and others, again as required by Security Council resolutions.



If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will release or account for all Gulf War personnel whose fate is still unknown. It will return the remains of any who are deceased, return stolen property, accept liability for losses resulting from the invasion of Kuwait, and fully cooperate with international efforts to resolve these issues, as required by Security Council resolutions.



If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all illicit trade outside the oil-for-food program. It will accept U.N. administration of funds from that program, to ensure that the money is used fairly and promptly for the benefit of the Iraqi people.



If all these steps are taken, it will signal a new openness and accountability in Iraq. And it could open the prospect of the United Nations helping to build a government that represents all Iraqis -- a government based on respect for human rights, economic liberty, and internationally supervised elections.
 
Sorry No_Vaseline, you are wrong too.



We have 1.4 million active members of the military and about a million more reserves. We can sustain our involvement in Iraq with available resources. Also, current policies that call for 7 month deployments for Marines and 1 year deployments for people in the Army are not set in stone. They could be changed if we actually did have a manpower shortage.



Also, for all the liberals who keep hoping for a draft, there is a free market alternative to deal with manpower shortages should they occur. If the military consistently misses enlistment goals, then raising the bounty by paying more or increasing benefits is a good way to meet our needs.
 
There we go.



[quote author="WINEX" date=1217406505]FairEconomist, it is better to be silent and thought a fool than to speak and remove any doubt. </blockquote>


Pot, this is Kettle calling........



Colin Powell disagrees with you.



http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/04/ap_colin_powell_042808/



<blockquote>Seventy percent of the officers attending the Command and General Staff College have been deployed at least once to Iraq or Afghanistan, a figure that officials expect to grow to almost 90 percent the next few years.



?But there is a limit to how much you can ask of them when most of the rest of the nation is not paying the price,? Powell said. ?They will continue to pay the price, but sooner or later they have to turn their attention to their families. That?s why I think there is a finite limit to how many times you can recycle the same force.?

</blockquote>


This is someone who paid a dear price in Vietnam and doesn't want to see the mistakes repeated, but what's he know.



Nevermind. You'll be dissapointed soon enough, even with my vote on your side.
 
No_Vaseline, there is a finite limit to everything. I haven't read your link yet, but doubt seriously that there are any empirical studies that demonstrate that the beginning of '09 is the end of the line. With about a 5% commitment of current forces (active and reserve) in Iraq today, there is room to make sure that our warfighters don't get burned out. There is certainly room to redeploy troops we currently have in something like 160 different countries. (Do we still need to protect the "West" Germans from the "East" Germans?)



We don't lack the ability to sustain operations in Iraq. But Obama has already demonstrated that he lacks the will. (He has also demonstrated that despite his mantra of "change", he is a very typical politician when it comes to engaging in revisionist history.)
 
In order to get that 'empirical' data you write about, we would have to break the military. Or, you can just grab a pinch of common sense and just say no to "MBA disease" (that's where you look for that one last piece of data you need to make a good decision). Are you suggesting we break the military?



Those soldiers you mentioned that are available to 'redeploy' from Germany are unavailable for deployment. They are obligated to remain at certain numbers via various standing treaties we have with said countries (Germany, Korea, Japan all come to mind). I know this. People in the military I know tell me this. The information is readily available, but not widely publicized because its bad for morale and mission. You are ignoring it because it's inconvenient to your reality. If we had extra troops to deploy, there would be no 'surge' (they would be permanent) and we wouldn't be rotating soldiers back for 3 and 4 deployments.



The military makes its retention and recruitment goals because they continue to move the goal posts back to where they can make mission, as opposed to where mission should be. They do a great job of burying this data because they don't want to panic the public (notwithstanding the problems it would cause with morale and mission). See above reference to 3 and 4 deployments.



Your opinions are fairly typical of the mainline conservatives I know. You rack Obama (who hasn't been elected yet), yet hold your nose to ignore the piece of rotting meat in front of you (incompetent execution by the current administration). It is my opinion that citizens like yourself are the greatest threat to our military, because they allow themselves to be deluded by ideology in the face of facts at the expense of those soldiers and sailors (and their families) who valiantly serve to protect the exact freedoms you are abusing. You can stomach a loss, so long as it happens when your team isn?t on watch.



To me, this is more than a little personal. I grew up in a military town. My dad served in the Marines for six years during Vietnam. My best friend from high school gave his life as a Naval Aviator in service to our country. And a dear friend of mine is fixing to deploy to somewhere in the Mideast for the fourth time (once to Afghanistan, twice to Iraq, and this time to parts unknown) to "train", leaving his wife and my two godchildren again, in service to our country. We are not doing enough, we are not sacrificing enough, and we are collectively ignoring a problem that grows progressively worse every day.



We are no longer a country of patriots, nor of chickens. We've become ostriches.



I will write no further on the topic. It is far too difficult (for me) and most of my fellow citizens would rather drink their political parties Kool-Aid, even in the presence of piles of empirical data. That goes for both sides.
 
"While it is popular to say that WMD were the reason behind the war, the truth is far different"

Then we were LIED to by the Republicans you elected!



"there is a free market alternative to deal with manpower shortages"

A free market alternative that Republican tax cuts REFUSE to pay for. You are talking out of both sides of your mouth. Being a patriot is expensive. If you think USA taxes are so unfair, go live in a country that has even lower taxes for the wealthy. I guarantee you won't like the corruption. Bullets = Tax Dollars



"But I do work on a daily basis with brave and proud Americans who have been, and are going to Iraq."

Funny, so do I. None of them think this war is a good idea. Like I said before, when they think this war is worthwhile, I will support it.
 
Winex, did you even read the Wiki link? It backs up what I've been saying:



Al-Zarqarwi's organization was founded as "al-Tawhid wal-Jihad", not Al Qaeda, and independently of Al Qaeda

Even after starting to call it "Al Qaeda in Iraq" he refused multiple offers by Bin Laden to actually recruit him and ignored orders from bin Laden and his lieutenants.

He never got support or assisstance from the real Al Qaeda Bush has allowed to grow strong in Afghanistan and Pakistan by sending our troops to Iraq.



Your rant that Al Qaeda isn't in control in Iraq completely misses the point. We were fighting a broad Sunni coalition in Iraq, the most important part of which was the secular Baathists from the old Iraqi Army. Since we weren't fighting Al Qaeda, when Petreaus surrendered and gave our opponents control of Anbar, Al Qaeda didn't get control. Duh.



You're copying the Bush administration in throwing a whole pot of spaghetti against the wall looking for some excuse to attack Iraq. Sorry, nothing sticks. There were no WMDs. There was no Al Qaeda there. Hussein wasn't working with Al Qaeda or "Al Qaeda in Iraq" (Zarqawi was *hiding* from Hussein in <a href="http://www.kurdmedia.com/article.aspx?id=14278">Kurdish territory</a>). And if you think spending a trillion dollars, killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, losing thousands of American troops, and putting an Iranian-allied government in control of Iraq is justified by technical ceasefire violations you've got some weird priorities.



As to the American military, what Bush has put our soldiers through is far worse than Vietnam. Vietnam draftees usually went once. Bush has sent some troops into the hellhole he's made Iraq into as many as FIVE times. And the predictable result is record levels of PTSD and related problems. I don't understand why somebody who seems to approve of the US military defends a policy and administration that brutally abuses them, and does so for nothing of value to our country or people.



And OMG, are you seriously trying to defend Bush by citing Clinton's training policies? Bush has gotten thousands killed, caused tens of thousands of PTSD cases, broken up thousands of marriages, and destroyed recruitment to the point where they have to routinely accept soldiers with <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/14/us/14military.html">felony convictions</a> - but it's OK because they don't train with blank cartidges sometimes?
 
[quote author="WINEX" date=1217409789]Also, for all the liberals who keep hoping for a draft, there is a free market alternative to deal with manpower shortages should they occur. If the military consistently misses enlistment goals, then raising the bounty by paying more or increasing benefits is a good way to meet our needs.</blockquote>


Oooh, yeah! Spending as much on our military as the rest of the world COMBINED isn't enough! Lets spend more! It's a good thing that after years of Republican administration we have large budget surpluses and a low national debt to let us pay for it! And that the banking and pension system guaranteed by the federal government and essential to our economy aren't facing hundreds of billions in losses from a housing bubble!
 
FairEconomist, I am not sure whether you are intellectually lazy, or if you are just lying. But yes, I did read the links I provided. And no, they do not back up with your outrageous claims.



Among the quotes you either didn't read or are hoping that we didn't read are the following:



According to the Washington Post and some other sources, he formally swore loyalty (Bay'ah) to bin Laden in October 2004 and was in turn appointed bin Laden's deputy. Zarqawi then changed the name of his Monotheism and Jihad network to "al-Qaeda in Iraq," [53](Tamzim al-Qaeda wa'l-Jihad fi Balad al-Rafidayn)[54]



So much for your claims that al Qaeda in Iraq has nothing to do with al Qaeda. Now that your wild claims have been refuted, are you going to claim that al Qaeda in Iraq has nothing to do with Iraq?



Of course that's not the only part of the article that you hoped no one read. Here's another quote:



Before the invasion of Afghanistan, Zarqawi was the leader of an Islamic militant group affiliated with al-Qaeda. In an interview on Al-Majd TV, former al-Qaeda member Walid Khan, who was in Afghanistan fighting alongside Zarqawi's group explained that from the day al-Zarqawi's group arrived, there were disagreements, differences of opinion with bin Laden.[55] Saif al-Adel, now bin Laden's military chief, was an Egyptian who attempted to overthrow the Egyptian government saw merit in Zarqawi's overall objective of overthrowing the Jordanian monarchy. He intervened and smoothed the relations between Zarqawi and Al Qaeda leadership.[56] It was agreed that Zarqawi will be given the funds to start up his training camp outside the Afghan city of Herat, near the Iranian border.[56]



And I'm sure you hope no one saw this:



In April 2007, former Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet released his memoir titled At the Center of the Storm: My Years at the CIA. In the book he reveals that in July 2001, an associate of Zarqawi had been detained and, during interrogations, linked Zarqawi with al-Qaeda operative Abu Zubaydah.[63] Tenet also wrote in his book that Thirwat Shihata and Yussef Dardiri, "assessed by a senior al-Qa'ida detainee to be among the Egyptian Islamic Jihad's best operational planners," arrived in Baghdad in May 2002 and were engaged in "sending recruits to train in Zarqawi's camps."[64]



This one is a little difficult for you to explain as well:



On December 27, 2004, Al Jazeera broadcast an audiotape of bin Laden calling Zarqawi "the prince of al Qaeda in Iraq" and asked "all our organization brethren to listen to him and obey him in his good deeds."[70] Since that time, Zarqawi had referred to his own organization as Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad.





But no matter how much you deny reality, President Bush specifically said "If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all support for terrorism and act to suppress it, as all states are required to do by U.N. Security Council resolutions." Not only was Saddam Hussein supporting terrorists in Iraq, but he was very openly giving money to families of suicide bombers attacking Israel in the weeks before the war.



Of course this is all a diversion from the subject of this thread - O-Bambi's revisionist history and decision that his own political interests trump the interests of the country.
 
[quote author="WINEX" date=1217480630]O-Bambi's </blockquote>


Your continued use of O-Bambi is as offensive to me as when people refer to the President as "The Shrub". Both men deserve more respect.



Why I was then, am now, and will continue to be Hawkish on Iraq. Hussin was a bad man who was up to bad things.



http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/07/07/iraq.uranium/



OT:



Do you frequent the wine-x-change?
 
Sorry No_Vaseline, no offense was intended. O-Bambi is meant to convey that he is inexperienced and a "little deer".



As for the wine-x-change, I never heard of it. WINEX is an old forum nickname I have used elsewhere. It comes from the Linux world. WINE is a project that is porting Windows DLLs to the Linux world. It uses one of those recursive acronyms that are popular in the Open Source world and stands for WINE Is Not Emulation. WINEX is WINE plus Active X functionality.



I wasn't going to mention it because your previous message expressed a desire not to continue this conversation, but, well, here we are.



And since we are here, there are a couple of things I need to clarify based on assumptions you have made.



First and foremost, you questioned if I had a desire to "break the military" because I mentioned the lack of empirical evidence to support Colin Powell's statements. Just so you know, nothing could be further from the truth. Though I have skills that can be used in quite a few industries, I spend my life designing and developing systems that increase the lethality of our warfighters and improve their odds of surviving conflict. My support of the brave patriots who are willing to sacrifice everything for their country has nothing to do with the political affiliation of whatever President ordered them into harms way. I care as much about our people in Bosnia and South Korea (both conflicts initiated under Democrats) as I do about our people in Iraq and Afghanistan. (I can't help but note that Bosnia was done without any UN support whereas Iraq failed to get an 18th UN amendment as is therefore called an "illegal war" by various "useful idiots". Also of note is that Harry S Truman didn't even consult Congress about sending US troops to Korea, yet here we are 55 years later...)



Two more things worth noting, the reason we don't have more troops in Iraq than we currently do is related more to desire than ability. There are a tremendous number of support personnel necessary to put each person at the "pointy end of the spear" in place. Though there is a transformational change occurring in the way we operate, currently it takes approximately 22 support personnel to support each warfighter. The current thinking is that smaller, more mobile, more lethal forces are a better strategy because it reduces the supply chain. (There is a feedback look that requires more protection for supply chains which in turn necessitates a larger supply chain ... )



Another thing worth noting is that there are currently 40,000 US troops in Germany and Italy. Despite what you mentioned about treaties earlier, the current number is down from 62,000 just 2 years ago. We halted the drawdown at 40,000 last winter by order of Robert Gates. The Rumsfeld plan called for us to draw down to 20,000. ( source:http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/21/washington/21military.html?ref=world) We can redeploy people from various parts of the world. But questions about whether we possess the will to stay the course are valid.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top