Print
E-mail
Share
digg
Newsvine
Facebook
Stumble
Technorati
reddit
Fark
twitterLetter to the editor:
Obama’s war position moves toward reality
Tuesday, July 29, 2008 | 2:02 a.m.
In response to George Hamilton’s Thursday letter, headlined “Vote for either man is a vote for war”: As Barack Obama learns and matures, he is coming to the realization that George W. Bush, John McCain, the Democrats (a huge majority), and the American public (another huge majority), were correct all along. All but a couple of our lawmakers voted to send our warriors into battle.
As commander in chief of the battle in Iraq, George Bush has performed poorly; from the beginning there weren’t enough troops and they were never allowed to be aggressive. This battle in the war on terrorism should have been over years ago.
Obama is slowly coming to the realization that the war on terrorism is far from over, and any distinction on this issue between him and John McCain is fading fast. Mr. Hamilton states that “millions of young voters must be shocked.” Why? The truth will come out!
The voters have an alternative. If you are a voter who abhors all war and settling for peace at any price is your goal, vote for the real “no war” candidate — Ralph Nader. Just do not expect peace to follow.
Discussion: 36 comments so far…
Post a comment
- Most Read
- Discussed
- Most E-mailed
- 6th arrest made in officer’s death; 5 face formal charges
- Harrah’s working on plan to take over Planet Hollywood
- Judge’s divorce filing follows arrest of her husband, a lawyer
- ‘DWTS’ champ Donny Osmond still deft afoot in return to Flamingo
- Task force taking down mortgage scammers, one at a time
- Two years after Sports Illustrated feature, Bellfield says gamble paid off
- Contractors make another bid for Fontainebleau
- UNLV zaps Holy Cross, 80-59
- Martha Stewart has no business criticizing Palin
- Shooting in parking lot of CVS leaves man dead
Blogs
The Kats Report
Could a savior of Las Vegas Art Museum be ... Peter Max? (1 Comment)
For Paul Stanley and KISS, rock and roll is not over (3 Comments)
Twenty years ago today, Human Nature took root on the farm (1 Comment)
Robin Leach's Las Vegas Celebrity Watch
Photo Gallery: Donny Osmond’s triumphant return to the Flamingo
The Kats Report
'DWTS' champ Donny Osmond still deft afoot in return to Flamingo (7 Comments)
Politics: The Early Line
Meeting of GOP governors draws challengers, not Gibbons (3 Comments)
Politics: Ralston's Flash
Oscar loves forcing developers to sign labor peace agreements, Culinary loves the city's downtown plans and all is forgiven (6 Comments)
Calendar »
- 27 Fri
- 28 Sat
- 29 Sun
- 30 Mon
- 1 Tue
-
Bill Cosby at Treasure Island
Treasure Island Theatre
-
The Las Vegas Locomotives vs. the Florida Tuskers
Sam Boyd Stadium
-
Papa Roach at the House of Blues
House of Blues | 6:30 p.m. to 11 p.m.
-
Tuff-N-Uff at the Orleans
Mardi Gras Room | 7 p.m. to 11 p.m.
-
David Spade at the Venetian
The Venetian Resort Hotel Casino
The Sun
Locally owned and independent for more than 50 years.
I guess you have to slaughter more than a million Iraqis before you are considered "aggressive" as epidemiological studies have concluded is likely? Were all those women and children terrorists? Now what was the name of that other country Senator Obama has been discussing for quite some time? You know, the one where the master planner of 9/11 was located before he fled to Pakistan???
Ok Sen McCain rattling iran is pushing it but lets leave the super powers alone for now, we know your anxious for WWIII, but comon get elected first. Wow King talking to McCain, I bet the charisma was palpable. I bet your head would spin with these charamatic charmers in the same room. They have a clip of the low lights of this interveiw at http://www.mccanes.com No but really I bet everyone would feel Old in that room. I heard that McCain was going to scrap his energy plan and adopt The Pickens Plan. Well at least then he would have a plan. lol. If you want to read the article I think I read it at http://www.Pickeneplan.com its at one of the links at the top of page. I think obama and McCain should both embrace mr. Pickens Plan. Lets face it both candidates really dont have much of a plan at all. I mean you could sum Obama's Plan up in a few words Green/dont drill you can read his too at http://www.theobamaplan.com
they also have the infamous cigar video at that site too. The one with obama smoking a cigar.
The war on terror needs to be fought in Afganistan, not Iraq. Obama has stated this clearly. The only problem in Iraq is US. They had internal struggles and civil squabbles prior to us invading their country. Now they have those same civil issues and they are killing us and we are killing them. We are the terrorists in Iraq.
We need to address terrorists that are using Afganistan as their home base and training grounds. This administration not only failed in the war on terror, they failed miserably. McCain wants to carry on with that failure. Obama wants to end our occupation and redirect our forces.
Obama is becoming more and more like Bush everyday.
He was against FISA and now he is for it.
He wants to wage an all out war in Afganistan.
He even wants to invade Pakistan without a declaration of war from Congress.
Bush must be smiling ear to ear when listening to Obama.
jfnance32, both Obama and McCain want to put more troops in Afghanistan. Only Obama has told us where those troops will come from. When I asked you where they would come from, you did not answer. Perhaps because you do not know?
And when did Obama claim he wants to invade Pakistan. This is not true. He said he is willing to strike within Pakistan, something Pakistan has allowed Bush to do, without a declaration of war. I said this yesterday, but you did not respond. Perhaps because the facts confuse you?
John McCain has been curiously silent as to the threats in northern Pakistan. It seems Obama has taken the stronger position against the threat of al Quada. Why is McCain being so weak with al Quada? He keeps claiming he's better on national security? This does not seem to be the case.
When one "strikes" terrority of another soverign country then according to Hussein's pals in the Democratic party, like MoveOn.org, that will require a Declaration of War from Congress. Otherwise, according to moveon.org folks, that is an impeachable offense.
Also, I do not think shooting a few missiles from drone planes or one or two quickie raids will result in any signfificant gains. I doubt if Pakistan will agree to a USA military campaign either.
So is Obama proposing more than a few missile attacks or a few raids? If the answer is no, then he is just being a pol to prove that he is "tough guy".
If the answer is yes, then I think he needs an act of Congress to send the divisions and massive air campaign into Pakistan to get the job done.
I am OK with Hussien playing these tough guys games. Sooner or later, it will catch up to him.
Oh, I see jnfance32, you would rather sit by and watch al quaeda reconstitute in Pakistan? That is sad and very dangerous, as they are our #1 enemy.
Moveon.org did not say anything about the missile strike in January. You bring up nonsense in the face of facts. I now understand why many people on this website do not take you seriously.
I worry that John McCain will not identify al quaeda in Pakistan as a problem. He has only spoken weakly about it.
""Of course, of course I would take action if we had actionable intelligence," McCain said. "We just acted on some actionable intelligence and apparently we may have killed eleven Pakistani soldiers. Um, and uh, that is, obviously arouses the anger of some in Pakistan... Of course you would, if you had actionable intelligence, you would take action..."
It is weak posturing like this that will allow al quaeda to grow in size and attack us again. John McCain should be ashamed. It is weak statements like this that make al quaeda strong. It seems John McCain is more afraid of our ally Pakistan than of al quaeda!
You, of course, did not answer a key question.
Perhaps you should not take yourself seriously.
I will repeat it in case you skipped over it.
So is Obama proposing a few missile attacks and a few quickie raids or he is proposing a major military campaign in Pakistan?
Also, I guess you and Hussein are totally ingoring what the crazy left has been saying for the last 5 years about impeaching Bush for invading a country without a declaration of war by Congress. Good for both of you.
That is very funny, jfnance32, because you have not answered several of my questions.
You did not say where McCain will get the brigades from that he says are necessary in Afghanistan.
You did not answer my question about Bush's attack in January.
Once you answer those questions, I will take you seriously.
And Bush has not been impeached for attacking within Pakistan in January. That argument makes no sense.
It is also very funny you are criticising Obama but not McCain. You will not criticise both sides.
"You did not say where McCain will get the brigades from that he says are necessary in Afghanistan."
President Bush is already moving the Marines bridages to Afghanistan.
The Joint Chiefs are already planning to move troops in the fall from Irag to Afghanistan because Bush's surge has worked so well.
NATO is planning to add troops there as well.
In my humble opinion, Irag is 100,000,000x more important than Afghanistan. Afghanistan will become more important if one can perform a large military campaign in Pakistan.
McCain is correct to keep the focus on Irag and not Afghanistan unless one can perform a massive military campaign in Pakistan.
"You did not answer my question about Bush's attack in January."
Is not me or other conservatives that question the legality of Bush's attacking other countries without a formal declaration of war from congress.
It is liberal base of Hussein's party that will question a large military campaign in Pakistan.
A missle strike or a raid is one thing. A full blow military campaign is a different ball of wax.
Now your turn:
"So is Obama proposing a few missile attacks and a few quickie raids or he is proposing a major military campaign in Pakistan?"
You said: "So is Obama proposing a few missile attacks and a few quickie raids or he is proposing a major military campaign in Pakistan?"
He has not said, you will need to ask the candidate. I believe it will depend on the conditions on the ground. But you already jumped to a conclusion and said he wants to "invade Pakistan" (but without a quote) so I guess you know more about it. Please tell me, what are his plans?
Don't ignore the participation of the Pakistani government in allowing the attack in January. The talaban is resurgent, al quada is clustered in northern Pakistan, but John McCain thinks fighting a few insurgents in Iraq is more important than al quada? That's crazy talk. I have not read anything about claiming an impeachable offense by MoveOn. Can you point me to a link? And why didn't they try to impeach bush for the attack in January?
Bush is withdrawing troops from Iraq to send them to Afghanistan? Then we can continue to withdraw troops from Iraq. If it has been such a success, why can't we leave? If Iraq is so much more important than Afghanistan, why aren't you mad about Bush removing the troops? That doesn't make much sense. Where did the 9-11 hijackers train?
Why are you so critical of the democrat's plan but not the republican's?
I doubt if either candidate will have much success at destroying terrorist bases deep in Pakistani territory. That will take more than cruise missiles from a drones or special ops raids.
Neither candidate has promoted a major military campaign striking deep into Pakistani territory which is the only solution to the problem. That is probably a wise decision.
Obama’s plan to invest in Afghanistan does not do much in the war against our enemies if Pakistan will still be a major staging ground for terrorist.
Pakistan has neither has the will or the ability to deal with terrorist bases in the mountainous area near the Afghanistan border.
The Pakistani government will not tolerate major military operations by NATO in that region either.
That makes Afghanistan not very important. Afghanistan is not a staging ground for terrorist. It is a minor battlefield. You do not need a super large force to deal with Taliban.
This really shows that McCain has the better judgment.
Iraq is extremely important. It sits on major oil reserves. It is borders two of our biggest enemies which are Syria and Iran. Iraq is near or borders our two key allies which are Israel and Saudi Arabia. It also connects to the most important body of water which is the Persia Gulf.
If we lose Iraq to Iran or to the terrorist then Iraq will become a major problem for the USA. It is very foolish to blindly divert resources from Iraq to Afghanistan especially with the surge going so well. It is better to be conservative and keep extra troops in Iraq just to make sure that Iraq is secured.
It is OK to move some troops from Iraq to Afghanistan because the surge is working so well we do not need as many troops.
It is EXTREMELY foolish to say, "Lets move all the troops out."
The real reason why Obama wants to move troops out of Iraq is because he promised that to get the Democratic nomination. It is not because of some grand strategy to defeat the terrorist bases in Pakistan because he has no SERIOUS plan to defeat terrorist bases in Pakistan. You said so yourself that he has no plan to defeat terrorist bases in Pakistan.
May God watch over the USA and help us get McCain elected.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,3942...
This is another reason why the Pakistan problem is hard to deal with.
The above article says, "The CIA has confronted senior Pakistani officials with evidence showing that members of the country's spy service have deepened their ties with some militant groups responsible for a surge of violence in Afghanistan, possibly including the suicide bombing this month of the Indian Embassy in Kabul, The New York Times reported."
So you would rather watch al quaeda reconstitute itself in Pakistan? That is John McCain's big plan? You give many reasons why it will be difficult to carry out, but Bush just praised Pakistan's cooperation in an attack yesterday. It seems it is easier than you think... Just ask Midhat Mursi al-Sayid Umar, who we killed with rockets on monday.
Monday we killed one of the top 37 most-wanted terrorists inside Pakistan with missiles from the predator drones. You claim this is not effective? That is not true. Pakistan has begun to cooperate, and Barack Obama has led the way in planning for more attacks on al Quaeda.
You underestimate the problem with the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan. We cannot allow al quaeda to exist with impunity. I can't believe you think Iraq is more of a threat to us than al quaeda, who continue to plan attacks.
According to a RAND report released this week: "As evidence, the study notes that the number of Al Qaeda attacks worldwide — excluding Iraq and Afghanistan — had increased after 9/11 and spiked last year to nearly double the previous high. Iraq and Afghanistan were excluded, and so were any strikes by groups without “probable” connections to Osama bin Laden’s organization."
It is very troubling that John McCain is ignoring the very real and growing threat of al qaeda. This is just like in early 2001, when we were warned of Bin Ladin's plans to attack the U.S. We must never again underestimate al quaeda and the threat they pose. We learned our lesson on 9-11. I hope John McCain will get on the ball and start to follow Obama's lead.
Let's round up all the illegals - ship them off to war and if they survive THEN they can get their reward of instant citizenship.
Shooting missiles from afar will kill some but it will not be that effective.
Pakistan may be the enemy itself.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,3942...
You have the right and privilege to bury you head in the sand.
If shooting missiles from drones is Obama's plan to defeat Pakistani terrorist camps then feel free to vote for Obama.
I am going with McCain. He is not spewing a bunch nonsense to please a crazy leftist base in the Democratic Party.
He is properly putting a higher priority in keeping Iraq stablized.
It is not pratical at this point in time to effectively deal with terrorist camps in Pakistan either by Obama or McCain.
Keeping shooting the missiles. A dead terrorist is a good terrorist.
Wow, it is not practical to attack our #1 enemy, al quada? Do you think we should just sit back and let them regain strength? That is an Awful idea! They attacked us and killed thousands of innocent civilians! They must be stopped!
I'm glad President Musharraf allowed us into Pakistan to kill another leader of al quaeda. I may not like Bush very much, but attacking al quaeda should be our #1 priority. Maybe if someone like Barack Obama gets into office, he can convince them to go after the terrorists.
Obama said he wants to make financial support for Pakistan contingent on their cooperation in weeding out terrorists. I think that's a great idea! Make them work for the money! And Obama seems to be better at influencing foreign leaders. John McCain doesn't have a plan for Pakistan, it seems.
I guess John McCain needs to be reminded of the lessons of 9-11. He needs to go after al quaeda before they attack again! What is his plan? He won't say. I don't think he has one.
I guess you have forget to read.
1. Musharraf is no longer in charge in Pakistan.
2. Do you read this article? http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,3942...
3. "Obama said he wants to make financial support for Pakistan contingent on their cooperation in weeding out terrorists" Good for Hussein...What we he do if they say that we can keep our money? (Be sure to read point number 2 first)
Dispute this statement:
The only way to remove the bases from Pakistan is to conduct a long and deep multi-divisional military campaign into Pakistan by US armed forces.
I think you are wrong, and we should definitely go after al quaeda! Why would we want them to become stronger? They are a very big threat to us! And according to the RAND report, they are attacking more and more frequently. We should not let them get away!
President Musharraf is still the President, jfnance32 and Prime Minister Gillani is still the Prime Minister. I did not misspeak.
Yes, having a few bad apples in Pakistan's intelligence ministry is a problem, but that means we should not attack al quaeda? They killed thousands of innocent civilians and they are going across the border from Pakistan to Afghanistan to attack our military! We should not let a few bad apples prevent us from securing our nation and our troops!
Maybe you did not read the article yesterday that said Pakistan is going to send an army unit into northern Pakistan to try to disrupt the flow across the border. They are already cooperating! You say they will not, but they already are!
It is a start, and maybe we can supplement their forces with air strikes or special forces. Those would be good ideas. We should help Pakistan eradicate al quaeda! They think FATA is a sanctuary for al quaeda. We should bomb it or send in special forces!
John McCain has not said he will send troops into Pakistan, or even that he will ask them for their cooperation. Why wouldn't he ask for their help?
I don't understand why you think we should let al quaeda get away. 9-11 was a horrible day for America, and the families of the victims deserve to know we are doing everything we can to destroy al quaeda.
Dispute this statement:
The only way to remove the bases from Pakistan is to conduct a long and deep multi-divisional military campaign into Pakistan by US armed forces.
You did not answer my points, jfnance, instead it seems like you want to play games. That is silly and does nothing to help our troops.
I said that before we make a decision to send in troops, we should see what progress is made with the Pakistani army, and if airstrikes or special forces can do any more damage, since the Pakistani government seems willing to cooperate. You kept saying they weren't going to help, but they are!
I am glad Barack Obama has al quaeda in his crosshairs. I think Barack Obama understands the threats to the United States. He is not afraid of heavy duty diplomacy, and we will need key allies to defeat al quaeda.
John McCain seems afraid to talk to our allies and to ask them for help. I think he is just going to repeat the errors of George Bush. He kept saying he wasn't going to send any more troops into Afghanistan, but once Barack Obama explained why we should, he changed his mind and decided to follow Obama's lead. It seems Obama is the better leader here. And John McCain said he would support attacking Iraq again, if he knew then what he knows now! He has not learned any lessons in the past six years. I do not think we should waste our troop's lives like that!
But I was pleased to see John McCain has finally come around to agreeing with Barack Obama about withdrawing troops from Iraq. Obama has said for over a year that we should withdraw if the commanders say it is ok, and John McCain just told Larry King that he would support Obama's timetable. That would free up many troops to help out in Afghanistan and to help reconstitute our own armed forces.
Not to mention many families will be happy to see their loved ones come home when Obama pulls them out of Iraq. They have served their country with honor! I just wish John McCain would have honored them more by supporting Senator Webb's G.I. bill. Thank God it passed!
I glad we had this discussion.
It revealed to me on how dumb the argument is about moving all the troops out Iraq.
You do not have to move all the troops out Iraq if all you going to do is to shoot missiles from drones at terrorist bases in Pakistan.
It would be smart to keep a certain level of troops in Iraq to make sure it is a stable country.
We can move some troops from Iraq to Pakistan.
It does not make any sense to remove all the troops from Iraq.
Pretty dumb of Obama to do that.
Please do not insult me by calling me dumb. I have been very respectful of you.
It is unfortunate you do not think we should listen to the commanders on the ground, like Barack Obama and John McCain want to do. They are military leaders and experts in their field. If they say it's time to go, we should listen to the commanders. I'm glad Barack Obama has made that pledge, and feel rather confident that John McCain will follow in his footsteps. We should not leave the troops in Iraq if they are not needed there! That is a huge waste of money and resources! Both Obama and McCain want to leave a small residual presence to secure our interests. That is the best thing to do!
I'm am glad John McCain agrees with Barack Obama now. Obama always had a reasonable plan, but people were lying and misleading the public.
Eventually, maybe John McCain will want to attack al quaeda. I would rather we attack them now, and maybe step it up a notch. Barack Obama has pledged to do that, and the Pakistani government wants to help!
We need to rid the world of the evil al quaeda!
I did not call you dumb.
I called dumb the argument to move all the troops out of Iraq. Moving ALL THE TROOPS has absolutely nothing to do about terrorist bases in Pakistan.
You do not have to move all the troops out of Iraq to fight Pakistan terrorist camps.
Iraq is far more important than Afghanstan.
If we lose Iraq then there will be major problems for the USA.
Obama has no real plan to deal with Pakistan terrorist camps.
Shooting the occasional missile from drones is not a serious plan.
Expecting Pakistan to step up and destory the terriorist bases is not very promising.
Did you read that story where Pakistan Intelligence Agency was behind the attempt to kill Afghanistan's president?
You do know that it was the Pakistan's intelligence agency who installed and created the Taliban the first place in Afghanstan.
How about this quote dated July 13th, "Pakistan's top diplomat said Saturday there are no U.S. or other foreign military personnel on the hunt for Osama bin Laden in his nation, and none will be allowed in to search for the al-Qaida leader."
Here is a very good article on the low expectations that Pakistan can root out the terriorist camps. Pakistan has been "trying" to destory the terrorist bases for the last 5 years. They have not even come close.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.p...
You know Obama was chairman of a Senate sub-committee that was suppose to oversee US policy on Afghantan. He never convene one meeting on the subject.
Obama is just doing this Afganistan talk as an attempt to prove he is tough with the terrorist.
He never care about the subject when he was the sub-committee chairman. He never visted the country until last week.
Ok good. Thank you for being polite. I must have misread that.
None of the candidates said they want to remove all the troops. I said this in my last comment. Both Barack Obama and John McCain want to leave a small contingent to reinforce our interests in Iraq. Were you exaggerating again?
The surge has mostly worked and now Iraq wants us to leave in 16 months. That was Barack Obama's original plan, and then al-Maliki, Bush and finally McCain agreed it is a good idea. I am glad we have a consensus of how to move forward.
Obama has said he will do what is necessary to take action against known threats in Pakistan. He has not given his plan away, that would be foolish. If he told al quaeda what he was going to do, they would move their bases or bomb our troops. That would be a bad tactical decision.
It is true that Pakistan has had their eye on the terrorists in the north, but they have not taken serious action yet. George Bush has made a little headway, and now we can send in Predator drones to take out known targets. That is a great first step. Now, Pakistan has agreed to send in some Army troops. They have never done that before. They may not be successful, but it is worth a shot. Plus, we can learn from their mistakes. Al quaeda in Pakistan is a mutual problem, and Pakistan is finally taking steps to take care of the problem.
Barack Obama is not chairman of a committee that oversees Afghanistan. He is the chairman of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee's Subcommittee on European Affairs. Afghanistan is not in Europe, it is in central Asia. His subcommittee has some juridiction over NATO, but his subcomittee could only give additional guidance, not demands.
I am kind of surprised you made that claim, since most people know that is not true. Maybe you were confused when John McCain said that Iraq shared a border with Pakistan. He is so funny sometimes, he reminds me of Grandpa Simpson from the Simpsons cartoon!
I am glad Barack did not go to Afghanistan. It is a very dangerous place in the middle of a war, and is no place for a U.S. Senator. Barack Obama does not need to prove he can travel, but govern, and his leadership on this issue has proven he has the chops.
Thanks for admitting that the surge mostly worked. Obama will not admit it.
Because the surge mostly worked, it is true that one can start reducing the troops in Iraq.
I think both Obama and McCain believe that one can safely remove some troops and send them to Afghanistan.
Shhh...do not tell anybody...but you are right that Hussein will leave troops in Iraq. He is very vague on how many that he will leave. On April 4 in a memo, one advisor recommended to keep up to 80,000 troops in Iraq. I think many of the crazy left that do not understand that Obama will leave a significant number of troops in Iraq.
http://www.prorev.com/2008/07/obama-will...
The difference between McCain and Obama on Iraq is that McCain will not remove one combat brigade unless the military says that combat brigade is no longer needed to stabilize the Iraq government.
McCain believes Iraq is more important than Afghanistan.
Obama must think Iraq is not that important.
The sub-committee has the responsibility to oversee NATO. The military campaign in Afghanistan is a NATO run operation and not a US run operation. He should have least had a meeting on why NATO is targeting civilians as he stated in a speech.
Also, Obama missed two of the three Senate Foreign Relations Committee meetings on Afghanistan.
He was part of a group of Senators that were visiting the Middle East region. In that trip, the group had a planned visit to Afghanistan but Obama decided to skip that part of the trip and instead visited Israel and Jordan instead.
President Bush’s wife and Mrs. Clinton have gone to Afghanistan.
Obama said that Iran is a tiny country even though Iran is 20th largest land mass country in the world and Tehran is the 19th largest city in population in the world.
Obama said Iran posed no serious threat even though its leaders have repeated said they want to wipe the USA and Israel off the face of the planet and it seems that Iran is hell bent on building nuclear weapons.
Obama said there were 57 states, that his parents met because of the Selma tragedy even though he was born before the Selma event, he stated that Hugo Chavez came to power during Bush’s term even though Hugo came to power in Clinton’s term, he said that the death toll of tornados in Kansas were 10,000 when it was 11, when giving a speech on deceased soldiers he said, “……of fallen heroes -- and I see many of them in the audience here today”., he referred to the president of Canada when Canada does not have presidents.
At least McCain did not cast a large portion of the voters as bitter people who cling to guns and religion.
That is very funny jfnance. The candidates make some silly errors when campaigning. We can only laugh at them. I know I would be tired if I were that busy!
You keep acting like Barack is keeping secrets. That is funny, but not true. He has said, many many times that his Iraq policy will depend on what the commanders on the ground tell him when/if he takes office. He started saying this in 2007, and has said it in many televised debates and speeches. And he won the Democratic primary after saying this many, many times.
And now John McCain says we can remove troops? He has flip flopped on this so many times, I'm not sure what his position is today. A week ago he said he wasn't sure he could support the 16 month withdrawal, now he can, so long as the leaders on the ground say it's ok. That is Barack Obama's plan. He stole it... or Barack convinced him it was the right thing to do. Why wasn't John McCain saying this in 2007?
In 2007, he said this plan was about surrendering and being weak. Now he thinks it's a great idea. He is very confused.
Obama and McCain have the same plan for Iraq, thus they understand how important it is. But only Barack Obama has been warning about the threat in Pakistan for over a year. John McCain dismissed it until very recently, when people began to think he was being weak. Now, suddenly, he's for putting troops into Afghanistan.
He sure likes to change his mind alot. Now I know why so many on the right said they wouldn't support him.
LOL That is funny you misquote Obama. You took his words out of context.
Obama said, "Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don't pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us and yet we were willing to talk to the Soviet Union."
I guess you think Iran is bigger than the Soviet Union? Iran is 1.68 million square kilometers. The Soviet Union was 22.4 million square killometers. Surely you do not believe Iran is bigger!
Or you think Iran is more of a threat today than the Soviet Union was in the 80's? The Soviet Union had thousands of nuclear bombs. Iran has none.
That is very poor arguing skills to take the words out of context and then lie about them. Why did you do that?
That is very troublesome, jfnance. People will not take you seriously and will not believe you.
"He has said, many many times that his Iraq policy will depend on what the commanders on the ground tell him when/if he takes office"
He has flipped flop on that in a single day.
But I am Ok with what you stated.
He cannot with a straight face promise that in 16 months that all combat brigades will be withdrawn.
Currently, the joint chiefs of staff are recommending a certain level of combat brigades. So in seven months from now they will magically recommend zero 16 months out from that point? That would be a silly expectation.
In Obama world, he separates combat brigades from other troops. I think he plans to have zero combat brigades in 16 months but still have over 60,000-80,000 troops in Iraq.
Do you understand that? I do not want you to be heartbroken after 16 months and find out that we still have over 60,000 troops still in Iraq.
"Or you think Iran is more of a threat today than the Soviet Union was in the 80's? The Soviet Union had thousands of nuclear bombs."
Soviet Union was a grave danger to the US but they did not have crazy people running the country.
Iranian President Mahmoud's Ahmadinejad's has some crazy beliefs.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/articl...
"Iranian President Mahmoud's Ahmadinejad's mystical pre-occupation with the coming of a Shiite Islamic messiah figure – the Mahdi – is raising concerns that a nuclear-armed Islamic Republic could trigger the kind of global conflagration he envisions will set the stage for the end of the world."
He believes that World War III will trigger the return of his blessed Messiah. And some intelligence reports believe that is he has a plan to trigger WW III so that his Messiah will return.
If you do not believe that Iran is not trying to build a nuclear weapon program then you are totally lost soul. There is nothing that I can say or do.
I believe this will happen on day and probably not in my lifetime.
The US President and his people will get a phone call. The people on the other end will say that they have planted several nuclear weapons throughout the US. They will probably say that will denote one near a US army base in a remote area to prove that they have one. They will make demands that probable including US withdrawing support for the state of Israel.
I have no clue on what the President should do when that day arrives. All the possible decisions will be wrong.
I have a feeling that people like Iranian President Mahmoud's Ahmadinejad's have no problem with the total destruction of their own country. They probably think it is good thing like an entire country doing a suicide bomb or a group martyr thing.
It is a different enemy that we have ever faced.
I do not think we have the skills, will, leaders or guts to win this war.
May God show mercy and grace to our children and forgive us for our failures.
I think you are confused, jfnance32. I have told you I am well aware of what Barack Obama has said about withdrawing troops from Iraq. I have also corrected you several times regarding his plans. But you keep repeating them. Why are you doing this? I have read and understand what he has said.
You also like to predict the future. That is scary stuff. I wish I had a crystal ball! I think it is much more likely that al quaeda will attack us before Iran. They should be our priority. Iran has said many things, some threatening, some not so threatening. But al quaeda has actually attacked us and killed thousands of innocent civilians on 9-11. We should never forget this and never give up. That is why Barack Obama has said he will go after al quaeda. I think we should try diplomacy with Iran. It worked with North Korea! And Bush said North Korea was evil like Iran.
I am glad you understand that Iran is smaller than the Soviet Union. It is unfortunate that you took Obama's words out of context. That is never a fair thing to do.
al qaeda is dangerous and we should be vigilant in attacking them.
al qaeda is Sunni dominated and Iran is a Shiite country. They tend not to like each other.
al qaeda is pretty much contained and has not attack the USA homeland since 2001.
Iran is hell bent on building a nuclear arms program. The US and the EU has offered very lucrative bribes to Iran if they freeze the enrichment program. Iran has turned that down those offers.
Making sure Iraq does not fall into the hands of Iran is extremely important.
We need to keeps troops in Iraq to ensure that the success of stabilizations continues.
A large number of combat brigades will keep the pressure up on Iran.
The final chapter is not yet closed on N. Korea. Under the Clinton adminstration they made a deal and N. Korea started to cheat immediately.
Also, the leader in N. Korea does not believe that triggering WWIII will bring back the Messiah. He is a thug but not a crazy thug.
In my humble opinion, the threat from the Iran is not tiny compared to the threat from the Soviet Union.
Al queda has doubled their attacks since 9-11! They are not contained!
"As evidence, the study notes that the number of Al Qaeda attacks worldwide — excluding Iraq and Afghanistan — had increased after 9/11 and spiked last year to nearly double the previous high. Iraq and Afghanistan were excluded, and so were any strikes by groups without “probable” connections to Osama bin Laden’s organization."
That is from a report by the conservative RAND group that was just published!
We cannot give up and become weak on al quaeda! That is a huge problem! I believe people do not take the threat seriously when they say al quaeda is contained but their attacks have doubled. That doesn't make any sense.
I thought Bush said the surge had worked. Now you think Iran is going to take over? I think we should try talking to them before we attack them. How could we deal with a war in Iraq, a war in Afghanistan and Pakistan and a war in Iran? We would lose. War with Iran is a horrible idea.
This is never ending! You think we will have a large number of comabt brigades in Iraq to ward off Iran? When will that end?
Iran cannot attack us with nuclear weapons. They do not have nuclear ICBM missiles. The Soviet Union had enough nuclear warheads to kill every single person on the planet. Of course they were a larger threat than Iran! Iran hasn't even attacked us. They just get angry when John McCain sings about bombing them. I would be mad if someone was threatening our country.
John McCain should stop singing about bombing Iran, or we'll never get out of Iraq!
You do not to have a missile to deliever a nuclear weapon.
Like you say, Obama is considering leaving over 60,000 troops in Iraq anyway. So Obama must have some realization that Iraq is important.
I think McCain is wise to not pre-promise removing all combat brigades in 16 months.
McCain will probably remove some combat brigades and send some to Afghanistan and some home. Very similar to what Obama will do except McCain most likely will keep some level of combat brigades.
Iran has never attack???? I guess you forgot the Carter years when they attack soverign US soil and either killed or took hostage our embassy staff.
I guess you have not follow the news reports of Iranian military training Iraq Shiite troops in Iran and then sending them into Iraq.
I guess you have not followed news reports of Iranian engineers creating very powerful new versions of IED's that can penerated our new armour vechiles.
I have no problem keeping the pressure up on al qaeda. Shooting missiles from drones in Afghanistan into Pakistan will not destory the terrorist bases in Pakistan.
Neither candidate have a good plan to deal with the Pakistani terrorist bases.
Yes, I too am sad that President Bush has failed to implement the suggestions of the 9-11 Commision. They worked very hard to come up with suggestions, but President Bush did not make them a priority. That is why we may be open to a small nuclear bomb. They can sneak it into the ports. President Bush should make preventing that a priority.
You are confusing me. You say that what Obama will do is very similar to what McCain will do, but then you say John McCain is not promising to remove brigades if the commanders say it's ok! Why won't John McCain listen to the commanders on the ground? He used to be in the miliary, he should listen to the commanders like Barack Obama is going to do.
Also, you are confusing me more. I did not say Obama is going to leave 60000 troops in Iraq. I think you said that. But that is not what he said. I think you are talking about the memo you linked. The memo was one of may options available to Obama, but it was not written by Obama. Maybe you did not read his editorial in the New York Times? I did.
Barack Obama said his goal is to remove the troops, but he may make adjustments based on what the commanders say. That is very wise! He wants to listen to the commanders.
If Iran is causing problems, then the government in Iraq need to take care of that. They need to stand up. President Bush said the surge worked. When will Iraq be able to defend itself?
But I did not know that the terrorist bases in Pakistan were so strong they could not be defeated by our missiles. The situation is much more grave than I thought. Since al quaeda is doubling their attacks and they have strong bases, they are much more of a threat to us than Iran. We need to act now. I'm glad President Bush is listening to Barack Obama and attacking them. We may need to do more!
I am glad that Obama is going to listen to the generals.
Right they are recommending a high level of combat bridages.
It is extremely doubtful that they will recommend to remove all of them 16 months from Jan 2008.
Good for Obama!!!! He will keep combat brigades in Iraq past 16 months from Jan 2008, if elected.
But you said "The difference between McCain and Obama on Iraq is that McCain will not remove one combat brigade unless the military says that combat brigade is no longer needed to stabilize the Iraq government."
Now you say you know Obama is going to listen to the military?
You are very confusing jfnance32.
Also the commanders may be saying we need troops now, but they may not feel that way in January. That is why Obama has said he will consult them. We are already pulling troops out that were in the surge. I am confident we can start withdrawing troops in January with the military's blessing. I wonder where you heard that, because they would not let the troops leave if they were still needed.
Too bad George Bush didn't listen to the military and send all the troops we needed in the first place. The war may have been over by now.
Hey, you said that Obama would listen to the generals.
It would very doubtful that the generals would go from a ton of combat brigades to zero brigades 16 months out from Jan.
Unless Bush has won the war in Iraq.
WOW.....Bush has won the war in Iraq according to Obama.