McCain thinks rationally...

[Blueblaze]

http://dailynews.att.net/cgi-bin/new...=ap&view=print

Unlike many people, McCain is thinking rationally by supporting Bush's plan. Score 1 for the 2008 President.

[404 Not Found]

I would agree that it could be rational, but I also feel that the amount of troops is to little to late. We have had over 180,000 prior to this past year in Iraq and are now down to 120,000. Why ask for 21,500 more? Why not 25,100? It still is not anything new based upon the amount of forces in Iraq...it's actually the 5th time we have done this and is on track with "Stay the Course".

Gates is calling for 95,000 more within 5 years, so the plan to stay and escalate is proving strong if it goes this way.

When we see in the news that al-Qaeda and the Taliban are mounting an offensive in Afghanistan’s eastern province, why would Bush call to pull a battalion from this area and move them to Iraq? Was not this war based upon getting Osama and defeating the heart of this terrorist cell due to what was once again made note of in Bush's previous speech...the words..."9/11"?

There are too many variables that do not add up for me.

I frankly think McCain is just posturing for his bid as the GOP runner for President in 2008. My prediction will be McCain-Liebrman for the GOP pushing a false bi-partisan appearance.

He questions the Democrats and now many Republicans of what will happen if we do not send these troops and all fails...he labels them as defeatists. What will he call himself if the plan to escalate and maneuver does not work and only draws more chaos? Can he point the finger at someone else after that?

I have no plan for success...but what troubles me is that I feel most of our elected officials do not have one either, except for possibly passing the buck.

Has anyone notice that neither side has a plan-B in case either direction does not work?

[ConcreteSchlyrd]

Unlike many people, McCain is thinking rationally by supporting Bush's plan.

This kinda cracked me up a little, since I probably would've stated it as "thinking rationally and supporting Bush's plan," since "by" makes it sound like Bush's plan was the only right decision to begin with. But you know, whatever gets your balls clean, I guess.

I guess I'm having a hard time considering either "side" on this issue. I'm pretty well convinced that if we left Iraq today, Iraq would implode and become yet another country in the Mideast that hated us (best-case scenario). It'd be bad news--I think you'd have a problem finding a scholar that would tell you much different.

On the other hand, I have yet to see/hear how 20k more troops operating in Iraq is going to be any help. Seriously. We've seen more than a couple large ebbs and flows in troop levels there over the past three years--how exactly has that helped? It'd seem that if your goal was just having a "massive number of boots on the ground," you'd have to go far beyond 20,000. It just seems to me like a delay of the inevitable.

The smaller, super-pessimistic part of me sees it as a way to draw this whole thing out another year or two. Make it the incoming President's problem. Hopefully saving Bush's historical "value."

So is either side right? No, I don't think so. This is where the country SHOULD sit down and debate. That's what this country USED to be good at--finding and weighing the pros and cons and acting accordingly.

[Blueblaze]

The democrats don't have a real strong plan, other than opposing what Bush's plans are. I do think we need to get out of Iraq as soon as reasonably possible, but we can't just abandon the Republic of Iraq as many of the democrats wish to do. We've already stirred up their government, so we just can't leave it as is, we have to help them rebuild themselves so they can fully stand on their own two feet.

[404 Not Found]

The democrats don't have a real strong plan, other than opposing what Bush's plans are. I do think we need to get out of Iraq as soon as reasonably possible, but we can't just abandon the Republic of Iraq as many of the democrats wish to do. We've already stirred up their government, so we just can't leave it as is, we have to help them rebuild themselves so they can fully stand on their own two feet.

So we pull our forces from Afghanistan and allow that country to become a mass market for terrorism, so that Iraq can be policed by the U.S.

Essentially, that is already happening.

It's just going to be as McCain called it Whack-a-Mole, but between countries now.

Who knows for sure...I would rather sit in a jail cell then fight Bush's war.

Blue...are you joining up? I am just curious if your at the recruiting age to fight such a battle. A volunteer army is not going to remain a viable solution if this escalates for years to come. Make sure your registered

[EDIT]: you make note of the Dem.s' not having a plan other than opposing Bush. We as a country have asked Bush what the plan has been and it seems to change from one excuse to another and each time it unfolds as being the same thing. There has never been a direct answer to anything from this administration. Maybe we can get a new catch phrase like we have had so far...this Administration likes catch phrases.

[Vatican Assassin]

http://dailynews.att.net/cgi-bin/new...=ap&view=print

Unlike many people, McCain is thinking rationally by supporting Bush's plan. Score 1 for the 2008 President.

Here's the 2 quotes you have offered on behalf of McCain:

"I believe that together these moves will give the Iraqis and Americans the best chance of success," said McCain, R-Ariz., a leading presidential contender for 2008.

"I believe these individuals ... have a responsibility to tell us what they believe are the consequences of withdrawal in Iraq," he said. "If we walk away from Iraq, we'll be back, possibly in the context of a wider war in the world's most volatile region."

Please explain how this is more rational than what we hear from other Republicans and news outlets. All I see is him saying, "The President's decision is good because it is: 1) likely to succeed, and 2) better than leaving." Rational might include telling us WHY leaving Iraq will a more "volatile region". Sending in a 15% increase, to me, doesn't change a god damned thing. We've lost 3k to death, and probably more to injury, so in essence, we are just getting back to the number of troops we had when we started.

Here's a little prediction: like in Vietnam, they used terms like short-term escalation, now we call it "surge", and they added 15k troops here, 20k troops there, and 7 years later, we had 80k troops dead. So the prediction is: in a few months, lets say May, they will be telling us that they need another 20k troops, then a few months later, another 30k. It's like when they start a new bridge toll. First they say a dollar, and we all think "oh its just a buck", then next year its 2, then 3. If they came out and said, "look we need 500k troops" we would be marching on Washington. But do it gradually, and we're too short-term thinking to add it all up.

If you haven't seen the movie Wag the Dog, check it out. It shows how the these things work. For instance, Bob Deniro plays a political magician and distracts the public from a poltical scandal by getting them to think about something else. He makes up a story about a new B3 Bomber. There is no such thing, but he uses it to deflect the media from the real story. But he doesn't have the media say there is a new B3 bomber, that might look suspicious. Instead, he comes out denying it exists. He says there is no such thing as the B3 bomber so many times that people begin to wonder, is there one?

I remember about a month ago Bush repeatedly stated that Iraq is not in a civil war. Over and over, denying it, even though no one had yet accused it of being that way. I think the truth is that he WANTS us to think Iraq is in a civil war. If it is, then you got Sunnis and Shiites fighting against each other, instead of what may actually be the real case: all Iraq militants are fighting against the US. We can hopefully remember that by the end of the Vietnam "conflict" that the South and the North were both working together against us, and we were pushed back into the sea. Now its the accepted "truth" that Iraq is in a civil war, and Ameria is trying to help the "good" side.

[Reaver]

It's truly difficult either way. On one hand, as already mentioned, if we leave then we'll be leaving Iraq in chaos. If we stay, we will slowly bring them around to some form of remotely civil diplomacy. I was watching the news this morning, and I was impressed because they went to soldiers in Iraq and asked what they thought about Bush's plan. One soldier to respond was in favor of the additional troops, because as he explained it, the more troops there the more eyes on the ground. All in all I think we've got ourselves in quite a predicament because we should have had many many more troops in Iraq if we were going to do this properly. The Gulf War had approximately 400,000 troops and if you compare this to Iraq, they have less than 400,000 and experienced war generals already explained that more would be needed than the Gulf War.

[Vykromond]

If we stay, we will slowly bring them around to some form of remotely civil diplomacy.

Oh, really?

[Blueblaze]

Here's the 2 quotes you have offered on behalf of McCain:

"I believe that together these moves will give the Iraqis and Americans the best chance of success," said McCain, R-Ariz., a leading presidential contender for 2008.

"I believe these individuals ... have a responsibility to tell us what they believe are the consequences of withdrawal in Iraq," he said. "If we walk away from Iraq, we'll be back, possibly in the context of a wider war in the world's most volatile region."

Please explain how this is more rational than what we hear from other Republicans and news outlets. All I see is him saying, "The President's decision is good because it is: 1) likely to succeed, and 2) better than leaving." Rational might include telling us WHY leaving Iraq will a more "volatile region". Sending in a 15% increase, to me, doesn't change a god damned thing. We've lost 3k to death, and probably more to injury, so in essence, we are just getting back to the number of troops we had when we started.

Here's a little prediction: like in Vietnam, they used terms like short-term escalation, now we call it "surge", and they added 15k troops here, 20k troops there, and 7 years later, we had 80k troops dead. So the prediction is: in a few months, lets say May, they will be telling us that they need another 20k troops, then a few months later, another 30k. It's like when they start a new bridge toll. First they say a dollar, and we all think "oh its just a buck", then next year its 2, then 3. If they came out and said, "look we need 500k troops" we would be marching on Washington. But do it gradually, and we're too short-term thinking to add it all up.

If you haven't seen the movie Wag the Dog, check it out. It shows how the these things work. For instance, Bob Deniro plays a political magician and distracts the public from a poltical scandal by getting them to think about something else. He makes up a story about a new B3 Bomber. There is no such thing, but he uses it to deflect the media from the real story. But he doesn't have the media say there is a new B3 bomber, that might look suspicious. Instead, he comes out denying it exists. He says there is no such thing as the B3 bomber so many times that people begin to wonder, is there one?

I remember about a month ago Bush repeatedly stated that Iraq is not in a civil war. Over and over, denying it, even though no one had yet accused it of being that way. I think the truth is that he WANTS us to think Iraq is in a civil war. If it is, then you got Sunnis and Shiites fighting against each other, instead of what may actually be the real case: all Iraq militants are fighting against the US. We can hopefully remember that by the end of the Vietnam "conflict" that the South and the North were both working together against us, and we were pushed back into the sea. Now its the accepted "truth" that Iraq is in a civil war, and Ameria is trying to help the "good" side.

The comparison to Vietnam cannot be applied adequetly because in Vietnam, we were fighting a territorial battle where we were attempting to push the Northern army as far north as we could. In the case of Iraq, we already have control of the complete country, we arn't fighting a normal organized force, but rather there are uprisings within the country itself by the terrorist groups. Its not quite a civil war as one half of the nation is not attempting to take over the other half, but rather, these terrorist groups want to pick apart the efforts in Iraq. In fact, many of these troops which are being pumped in, are not your everyday soldiers, but are specialized military troops which are trained in the Iraqi language and are trained to deal with certain reconstruction issues that occur. Vietnam serves as an example for what happens when you don't finish the job, and the same will happen to Iraq if we don't finish what we started.

[Vykromond]

In the case of Iraq, we already have control of the complete country

oh ok

[Blueblaze]

It's truly difficult either way. On one hand, as already mentioned, if we leave then we'll be leaving Iraq in chaos. If we stay, we will slowly bring them around to some form of remotely civil diplomacy. I was watching the news this morning, and I was impressed because they went to soldiers in Iraq and asked what they thought about Bush's plan. One soldier to respond was in favor of the additional troops, because as he explained it, the more troops there the more eyes on the ground. All in all I think we've got ourselves in quite a predicament because we should have had many many more troops in Iraq if we were going to do this properly. The Gulf War had approximately 400,000 troops and if you compare this to Iraq, they have less than 400,000 and experienced war generals already explained that more would be needed than the Gulf War.

I agree, by no means that what has happened is an easy solution. As Americans, in many regards, over the last 100 years, it has become our job to bear the burdens of the world. One of the statements by the Pentagon awhile ago was simply, 'Go Big, Go Long, or Go Home' and that portrays our solution to Iraq exactly.

If we go big, there will be much political resistance, but it is probably our best idea. The troops in Iraq want to go home, but they also want to see these people they've worked with succeed, so that their work was not in vain. More troops = more support, and with that we can get the job done quicker and more effectively. Honestly a force of near half a million troops would be the soundest way of helping resolve and create a long lasting stable democracy in the nation.

Going long, which due to political opposition is what we are forced to do. The result from this, we suffer more casualities than the previous plan, but it does get the job done in its time.

Going home, this is obviously the safest way for the American troops to get home (whether or not that puts the nation at a higher risk for terrorism such as nuclear weapons, biological weapons, similar Sept 11. attacks, etc... is to be debated) but as a result, we will end up sealing the fate for millions of Iraqis. Most likely some group funded by Iran will take over the nation and it will revert to a regime worse than Saddam's.

Do you sacrifice yourself for the nation of Iraq, or do you shiver up and cold heartedly forsake what we've gotten into? That's the real question at hand.

I say this with no disrespect whatsoever, but the sacrifice of a few thousand troops is worth the freedom for millions of Iraqis from severe terrorism and death.

[Blueblaze]

oh ok

You know what I mean. America has control over the country, of course we don't control every single area as there is a struggle, but its not as if a huge army has soundly captured 40% of the country as similar to Vietnam. The terrorists probably soundly control less than 1% of the country as they are forced to remain on the run for their lives.

[Vatican Assassin]

blueblaze you sir are a jackass

[Reaver]

Oh, really?

Possibly.