Reply With Quote
Chilling...
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Joint_...nton_0228.html
If only the military had gotten involved in the political decisions BEFORE the criminal war.
And Genl, wait for the election at least, that could elect your boy InSaine who could order you to attack Iran, since Iraq and Afghanistan are so totally under control.
Chilling...
I always highly respected Eisenhower, a military man, for warning us about the military industrial Establishment. Too bad idiots like LBJ and Bush II didn't heed his warnings.
This is THE issue that will sink Obama if he gets the nod for the Dems.
If any of you haven't seen it, I suggest this film on Eisenhower, the military-industrial complex, and our current situation:
Why We Fight
60% of the country disagrees.
While I'm glad the United States has set a precedent not to let military commanders dictate foreign policy, I think this underlies the importance of having someone in political office that DOES understand the purpose and limitations of the US military.
This is one of the main reasons I side with McCain, because he spent 22 years in the military and has most certainly gone through training on military history and strategy.
Electing someone who has no foreign policy or military experience when we are facing some very troubling situations abroad would be a mistake in my estimation.
Well it can't help that the highest ranking military official is warning against a pullout and both Democratic candidates are making a promise to begin withdrawal within 90 days....essentially failing to listen to your top military advisor on the first major CINC decision either would make as president.
While people are sick and tired of the war in Iraq, I think many Americans understand that an essential element to its failure to this point was the insistence on a "light footprint" strategy AGAINST the warnings of the JCS and top commanders in the region.
To repeat that mistake (not heeding advice/warning of top military commanders) may be costly, and I think that is a point McCain will drive home in the general election.
Not sure whether it'll work, but it's a legitimate area of concern for either democratic candidate.
he's one of the cheerleaders that caused these "troubling situations abroad".
the last 5 1/2 years of military service was in hanoi. many of his roomates called him songbird. not exactly a shining end to military service. i like the guy. i just tire of hearing his claims knowing how to wage a war, especially an unnecessary one, and his willingness to start others.
The Why We Fight video ( easily rented at Blockbuster or Hollywood) is an awesome do entary. It is a must see.
McCain didn't spend his last 5 1/2 years of military service at Hanoi. He was there from '68 to '73. He went on to XO and command a flying squadron and retired in '81.
Also, I think the implication that McCain will assume the Bush foreign policy (preemptive strike) is a false one. McCain has talked most notably about al-Queda and the road ahead in Iraq. I don't think he has displayed a "willingness to start other wars" as you suggest.
Last edited by AFBlue; 02-29-2008 at 01:07 PM.
"Electing someone who has no foreign policy or military experience when we are facing some very troubling situations abroad would be a mistake"
you mean like ... dubya?
While comfortably wealthy as silver-spoon adult, he never took his family abroad for a holiday. I think this says something about his wife, also.
So electing overseas-free, VN-evading dubya was wonderfully successful for US foreign affairs, but electing Obama isn't OK?
In a tight spot, Obama's intelligence trumps dubya's ignorance and stupidity. dubya has accomplished nothing in 7 years. Lame-duck year 8 will be more of the same.
I saw a movie were the joint chiefs were responsible for a another war . . . Vietnam!
Those guys are truly evil!
I do see this as an area of vulnerability for Barack. Will the fear mongoring work this time around?
Better question:
When hasnt fear-mongering worked?
nah, 60% of US thinks Iraq was a mistake, and want the US out of Iraq. I figure that number will go up. Brarack will win the presidency because of his war voting and stance, which is exactly while McCain will lose. Probably at least 52% - 48%.
Iraq is still totally ed, nothing is won, dubya is simply playing money-for-peace games (so why didn't he play money-for-peace games in 2005? too ing stupid). When the US bribe stops, the real games will continue, whether the US is there to referee the multi-party civil war or not.
So wait...everyone realizes it's a stupid idea to rapidly withdraw from Iraq now?
Then why the have the Democrats been trying to just that for 7 years now?
Welcome to reality...and FU for calling me a neocon for the last half decade.
"rapid withdrawal" would take up to 18 months, due to logistics, not the civil war. Iraq will be a wasteland littered for decades with 100s of $Bs of abandoned US military crap.
And much of the US forces leaving Iraq wouldn't come back to USA but would occupy other Gulf countries.
And, even withdrawn, I figure the AF and drones will be watching and bombing Iraq 24x7 for many years, just like they did after the first Gulf war.
A significant majority of people (NOT 50.5% - 49.5%) want the US out ASAP. 18 months - 2 years is probably ASAP.
The Dems will vote in much larger numbers than Repugs to elect the withdrawal candidate (Obama).
The Repugs, after 7 years of failure and badly divided over McCain, simply aren't energized.
The people who want the US out aren't experts on how to do it. That's not their problem.
btw, all predictions from the WH about what happens after Iraq withdrawal are simply not believable,are nothing but more fear-bombs, and/or WH ignorance about Iraq, which has been now proven repeatedly.
Since the quote was taken from my post, I think I'd just like to clarify....
I didn't vote for Bush in 2000 or in 2004. So for me, that's a moot point.
If you're asking me who would I vote for if it was Bush v. Obama, I'd go Obama.
But the reality is...it's McCain, who has a vast amount of military experience and training, versus either Clinton or Obama.
And on foreign policy, I trust the person with more experience and training.
60% of people NOW think Iraq was a mistake, but I think that's an important distinction. When we went in, it was much different.
I just wonder how much of America's perception has changed based on the level of violence we have experienced...
As they say, "hindsight is always 20/20".
As to whether the number who want us out of Iraq will go up, I think that honestly depends on the case that is made by both candidates in the general election. I honestly think it will be a featured point and could very well determine the outcome.
As much as people hate to see our young men and women dying for someone else's freedom, they also hate to see us lose.
I actually think this is the most solid point either democratic candidate would have. Because, while either candidate has suggested they will begin a "phased withdrawal", I don't think either has said they will definitely have the troops out within a given period of time. I know Hillary has been especially vague about this.
But it's the smart play. Because you don't want to promise the American people that you'll be completely out within a year and then still have troops in Iraq when you're running for re-election....even if the cir stances called for it.
"When we went in"
dubya and head and the neo- s were filling the air with lie after lie after lie, cherry picking intel, suppressing/classifying all doubts. Then they blame the disaster on "bad intel". The flaccid corporate media also bought in to the WH bull and totally dropped their role as "loyal opposition" and "investigative fact checker"
After 9/11, the WH lied that Iraq was terrorist, abused the confidence of the people who gave dubya benefit of the doubt. NOW they see they were lied to.
"lose."
Iraq was lost the day dubya invaded, ignorant, unprepared, mistaken, lying, incompetent.
Nobody has even a definition of "win" in Iraq anymore, the goalposts eternally moving, like dubya's lying lips. The only thing dubya wants is to occupy Iraq forever and get that oil. The Iraqi people and their civil war are a pain in the ass of the oil objective.
Last edited by boutons_; 02-29-2008 at 05:14 PM.
I agree, and I also think that the administration not finding WMDs was BIG reason whey the positive support turned negative quickly.
But I was just sort of "wondering out loud" what the effect of the relatively high casualty rate and meticulous media coverage has done to encourage that trend reversal from approval to disapproval.
I think it has SOME affect on that %.
Win: Leave Iraq in better shape than it was when we invaded. Help establish stable government, rebuild infrastructure, and restore border security.
Lose: Don't win.
And sixty percent makes it right. I don't think so. It
just means us forty percenters were right. So there.
boutons, you lost, we won and are still winning. Suck it
up and live with it.
http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news...osts_0228.html
Iraq war will cost up to $5 trillion
By BOB DEANS
Cox News Service
Published on: 02/28/08
WASHINGTON — The Iraq war will cost Americans between $3 trillion and $5 trillion, including military spending, broader economic costs and decades of benefits and medical care for combat veterans, a Nobel prize-winning economist told the Joint Economic Committee on Thursday.
...
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
