McCain says he could support 16-month Iraq timetable

cawacko said:
I'm getting off topic here but if you believe someone you work with is a terrible human being why would you want to spend your time talking politics with them?
Click to expand...

You know Cawacko, what you get stuck in is your rather gadfly-type of belief that this is all just politics. Why on earth would someone choose not to date someone “just because they differ politically”. Why would someone form a negative opinion about someone’s character, “just because they differ politically.”

But you are talking about war here. That’s life and death stuff. Some of us see the death, and aren’t able to dismiss it. And because of that, it does matter. It matters a lot.

I don’t think this means that you have to hate republicans you personally know, or even that it would be easy to do so. I know very few of them, none by choice, but I do like a couple of them. I block out of mind these life and death issues. But it’s not easy to do , and I’m not sure it doesn’t make me a huge hypocrite when I do it.
 
"Really? How exactly is it that we would have found out? So you are suggesting we should have massed the troops on the border and left them sitting there?"

Inspections were working in March of 2003 because of the troops amassed at the border. They would not have had to stay there indefinitely to complete review of all suspected sites; they certainly wouldn't have been there for 5+ years.

Can you be this stupid? Is it possible? Okay - you don't trust the U.N. Fine. But couldn't we have waited for a refusal at at least ONE suspected site before unleashing the dogs of war?

That's why your post "that we wouldn't have know without troops at the border AND invasion" is so dishonest, and pathetic. You are a Bush apologist through & through. Inspections were working, and would have shown us what we needed to know without spending $1 trillion, killing many thousands and creating a massive refugee problem.

What about that don't you get? Again...can you be this stupid?
 
Superfreak said:
You are quite funny. Why is it that you cannot comprehend the difference? You are intelligent enough to do so.

1) Bush fucked up by going in when he did
2) Bush fucked up in how the war was run
3) Bush fucked up by not having an exit strategy
4) Bush fucked up by not having contingency plans in place when the rosy scenario didn't work.

Saying that I thought we would eventually have to go in and remove Saddam does not change the fact that Bush fucked up.

Is that clear to you now or must I really state it another 120 times before you finally get it.
Click to expand...
What? Are you saying that Bush screwed the pooch?
 
Superfreak said:
Really? How exactly is it that we would have found out? So you are suggesting we should have massed the troops on the border and left them sitting there?

Don't go getting all emo on me again. Just because your guy was wrong and you are flailing about trying to proclaim that his position stayed the same and he was right doesn't mean you have to get personal. Or is everyone who disagrees with your almighty OPINION a pathetic excuse for a human being?
Click to expand...

Obama isn’t wrong. Less than 10% of Iraqi forces are properly trained, even now. The fact is, that when we pull some troops out, and we have to because their levels are unsustainable, according to OUR OWN military people, there will be another surge in violence. None of the actual goals of this surge were met. It’s something the media doesn’t talk about because they are frankly, stupid, one-dimensional people and are incapable of talking about it. But you are cock-a-doodle-doodling over nothing.
 
cawacko said:
I'm getting off topic here but if you believe someone you work with is a terrible human being why would you want to spend your time talking politics with them?
Click to expand...

I'd like to point out that I think I'm hte only one that personally attacked Bush supporters/apologists. Yes. I think they are fcking retarded and low life scum. I don't think dungheap has ever said anything like that though.
 
Darla said:
You know Cawacko, what you get stuck in is your rather gadfly-type of belief that this is all just politics. Why on earth would someone choose not to date someone “just because they differ politically”. Why would someone form a negative opinion about someone’s character, “just because they differ politically.”

But you are talking about war here. That’s life and death stuff. Some of us see the death, and aren’t able to dismiss it. And because of that, it does matter. It matters a lot.

I don’t think this means that you have to hate republicans you personally know, or even that it would be easy to do so. I know very few of them, none by choice, but I do like a couple of them. I block out of mind these life and death issues. But it’s not easy to do , and I’m not sure it doesn’t make me a huge hypocrite when I do it.
Click to expand...

Then how do Democrats get broken down? Is it by those who supported Democratic Senators who voted to give Bush approval and those who didn't? There are Democrats now that want out of Afghanistan and Iraq and those that want us to go harder in Afghanistan. There is not just one type of Republican and one type of Democrat.
 
Onceler said:
"Really? How exactly is it that we would have found out? So you are suggesting we should have massed the troops on the border and left them sitting there?"

Inspections were working in March of 2003 because of the troops amassed at the border. They would not have had to stay there indefinitely to complete review of all suspected sites; they certainly wouldn't have been there for 5+ years.

Can you be this stupid? Is it possible? Okay - you don't trust the U.N. Fine. But couldn't we have waited for a refusal at at least ONE suspected site before unleashing the dogs of war?

STOP... right there is where you continue to make your mistake when assuming my position.
Click to expand...

I do not think we should have had the troops there at that time to begin with. I think those troops should have been in Afghanistan. I think we could have maintained exactly what we were doing in Iraq UNTIL Afghanistan was resolved.

THEN we could have worried about Saddam. Though I do contend that something in the interim had to be done to ensure the people of Iraq were not continuing to starve. TO BE CLEAR: NO this is not a position that Bush took. THAT is MY opinion.
 
LadyT said:
I'd like to point out that I think I'm hte only one that personally attacked Bush supporters/apologists. Yes. I think they are fcking retarded and low life scum. I don't think dungheap has ever said anything like that though.
Click to expand...

That must make for a fun work environment.
 
cawacko said:
Then how do Democrats get broken down? Is it by those who supported Democratic Senators who voted to give Bush approval and those who didn't? There are Democrats now that want out of Afghanistan and Iraq and those that want us to go harder in Afghanistan. There is not just one type of Republican and one type of Democrat.
Click to expand...

Bush supporters are war supporters, period. So that is no big guess. As for Democrats, you are talking about the politicians, why do you have to be so stupid? Do you do it on purpose? I personally have never met a Democrat or a liberal who supports this war. And we are talking personal relations here. Stop.
 
Superfreak said:
I do not think we should have had the troops there at that time to begin with. I think those troops should have been in Afghanistan. I think we could have maintained exactly what we were doing in Iraq UNTIL Afghanistan was resolved.

THEN we could have worried about Saddam. Though I do contend that something in the interim had to be done to ensure the people of Iraq were not continuing to starve. TO BE CLEAR: NO this is not a position that Bush took. THAT is MY opinion.
Click to expand...


So by "worry about Saddam" you mean "inevitably invade Iraq?" But if it could be kicked down the road a ways, what's the justification for invading?

That makes no sense.
 
Dungheap said:
So by "worry about Saddam" you mean "inevitably invade Iraq?" But if it could be kicked down the road a ways, what's the justification for invading?

That makes no sense.
Click to expand...

He has repeated his reasoning about 1,000 times, but I'll never understand it. He has never been able to justify any kind of imminent threat or reason that would justify the huge endeavor of invading & overthrowing the regime, aside from Saddam "thumbing his nose" at us. I had no idea what he was talking about above - that troops should not have even been amassed at the border, even though they allowed for unfettered inspections, which would have debunked the only rational reason for invasion or war.

It's insanely convoluted logic.
 
LadyT said:
I know.

You're a bush apologist and now you support McCain who's had to copy Obama's superior strategy in Iraq.
Click to expand...

LMAO... ok you win... ya got me. I am done fighting this perception you all hold on to so dearly. Obama is indeed 'the One'. I shall fall back into the matrix like a good little lemming.
 
Dungheap said:
So by "worry about Saddam" you mean "inevitably invade Iraq?" But if it could be kicked down the road a ways, what's the justification for invading?

That makes no sense.
Click to expand...

See... now we are getting a bit deeper into it....

Again, to be very clear up front... this is MY OPINION... it is in no way meant to say that this is what any politician has proposed.... the following is purely OPINION... if you don't know what an OPINION is, stop reading at this point and go look it up before proceeding......

I think it was inevitable because I don't think Saddam would have complied with the UN without the threat of force sitting on his borders. With all the cries regarding the plight of the Iraqi people starving etc.... I think we should have gone in at that point.

To be fair to Lorax... IF we had that troop buildup (after afghanistan) and allowed the UN inspectors more time... yes, it might have worked quickly enough to lift sanctions and end it without going in. I personally do not believe this would happen. But since we cannot prove what might or might not have been... I will concede that it could have played out like that.

It is my opinion that it would not have. Once Saddam felt that the buildup wasn't a legitimate threat I believe he would have reverted to screwing with the inspectors once again. Again... this is opinion. I also think any long term presence of a mass force in Saudi would have caused great problems as it was the presence of the smaller force in Saudi and Kuwait that was a part of the reason for attacks on US interests.

That is why I believe it was inevitable. I don't think we could have kept the forces in Saudi long enough for the inspections to work.

As for justification... ending the first Gulf war was enough for me. Making sure the oil for food program actually got food to the Iraqi people would have been an additional (but not necessary to me) reason.
 
one year ago this board did not have this kind of animosity. People still yelled at eachother occasionally and disagreed even to the point of ad homs, but now, the politics is jagged and mean spirited. This sucks. I'm not going anywhere, but it sucks nonetheless.
 
Socrtease said:
one year ago this board did not have this kind of animosity. People still yelled at eachother occasionally and disagreed even to the point of ad homs, but now, the politics is jagged and mean spirited. This sucks. I'm not going anywhere, but it sucks nonetheless.
Click to expand...

I disagree; it's been pretty vitriolic since I got here, and the FP board was no better.

It's just the nature of the debate here; there is still good discussion, as there always has been, but it's mixed with what you describe above.
 
Socrtease said:
one year ago this board did not have this kind of animosity. People still yelled at eachother occasionally and disagreed even to the point of ad homs, but now, the politics is jagged and mean spirited. This sucks. I'm not going anywhere, but it sucks nonetheless.
Click to expand...

Ahh but 4 years ago and 8 years ago.....
Not necesasarially on this board but pretty much the same people that called me Unamerican, traitor, etc and such are now trying to suck up and be forgiven.
NO WAY they have helped to hose my country up too much.
 
Socrtease said:
one year ago this board did not have this kind of animosity. People still yelled at eachother occasionally and disagreed even to the point of ad homs, but now, the politics is jagged and mean spirited. This sucks. I'm not going anywhere, but it sucks nonetheless.
Click to expand...

I think one reason is when you debate with the same people over and over you tend to know each others positions pretty well and that familarity/getting bored of debating same people can lead to name calling.

Also with the election getting closer it seems to have magnified things. But I'm with you, and I include myself in what you said, it has changed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top