Political Crossfire Forums

[Ek0nomik]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/20/obama.iraq/index.html?eref=rss_politics

McCain and Obama, going head to head on this issue. What's left for America to do in Iraq?

[Chymical]

some reconstruction and security?

[Eduffy80911]

I hadn't formed an opinion on Obama because I hadn't heard or read much about him except that he was popular.

This at least gives me a clue.

Pulling out of Iraq would send a strong message, that terrorism works.

It's the politically easy thing to call for and exactly the wrong policy.

Iraq is our problem. The morally correct thing to do is to help the Iraqi's create a stable, free country, even if it can't be done by the next election and even if your party loses votes over it.

[IronBrigadeMike (IBM)]

Eduffy80911 wrote: I hadn't formed an opinion on Obama because I hadn't heard or read much about him except that he was popular.

This at least gives me a clue.

Pulling out of Iraq would send a strong message, that terrorism works.

It's the politically easy thing to call for and exactly the wrong policy.

Iraq is our problem. The morally correct thing to do is to help the Iraqi's create a stable, free country, even if it can't be done by the next election and even if your party loses votes over it.

I agree that it is the politically easy thing to do, and that it would send a message that terrorism works (which is wrong, we shouldn't be pulling out because of our loss of life, but because we don't care about Iraq and it's their problem). I don't agree that it is our problem just because we set it off. We did them a favor by removing Saddam, and it isn't our deal now if they all wanna kill each other. We are trying to give them a one time chance at freedom and democracy, and if they don't want to take it, then too bad for them.

[Eduffy80911]

IronBrigadeMike (IBM) wrote: Eduffy80911 wrote: I hadn't formed an opinion on Obama because I hadn't heard or read much about him except that he was popular.

This at least gives me a clue.

Pulling out of Iraq would send a strong message, that terrorism works.

It's the politically easy thing to call for and exactly the wrong policy.

Iraq is our problem. The morally correct thing to do is to help the Iraqi's create a stable, free country, even if it can't be done by the next election and even if your party loses votes over it.

I agree that it is the politically easy thing to do, and that it would send a message that terrorism works (which is wrong, we shouldn't be pulling out because of our loss of life, but because we don't care about Iraq and it's their problem). I don't agree that it is our problem just because we set it off. We did them a favor by removing Saddam, and it isn't our deal now if they all wanna kill each other. We are trying to give them a one time chance at freedom and democracy, and if they don't want to take it, then too bad for them.

There does, at some point, need to be an Iraqi or two with balls of steel, to step forward and champion freedom.

The US didn't become the US by our collective will, but by the perserverence of a few fearless individuals.

[A_happy_democrat]

Eduffy80911 wrote: I hadn't formed an opinion on Obama because I hadn't heard or read much about him except that he was popular.

This at least gives me a clue.

Pulling out of Iraq would send a strong message, that terrorism works.

It's the politically easy thing to call for and exactly the wrong policy.

Iraq is our problem. The morally correct thing to do is to help the Iraqi's create a stable, free country, even if it can't be done by the next election and even if your party loses votes over it.
Ok explain this to me, why stay for a lost cause. When people are being killed, every day, with out sight of an end. How many people must die before you change your mind. 100? 1,000? 10,000? 20,000?

[californian conservative]

A_happy_democrat wrote: Eduffy80911 wrote: I hadn't formed an opinion on Obama because I hadn't heard or read much about him except that he was popular.

This at least gives me a clue.

Pulling out of Iraq would send a strong message, that terrorism works.

It's the politically easy thing to call for and exactly the wrong policy.

Iraq is our problem. The morally correct thing to do is to help the Iraqi's create a stable, free country, even if it can't be done by the next election and even if your party loses votes over it.
Ok explain this to me, why stay for a lost cause. When people are being killed, every day, with out sight of an end. How many people must die before you change your mind. 100? 1,000? 10,000? 20,000?

til there is a referendum in Iraq and a majority asks us to leave. Until then it is our sh*t to deal with.

[soldierofsoul]

Well I'm glad Obama knows whats best for the country, you know he is so experienced an all...

[californian conservative]

soldierofsoul wrote: Well I'm glad Obama knows whats best for the country, you know he is so experienced an all...

Yeah i love his military credentials......oh wait........

[Ek0nomik]

You don't have to serve in the military to know how it works. What's with this common thought on political crossfire that military service somehow makes everyone such an excellent strategist?

[The Newb]

Ek0nomik wrote: You don't have to serve in the military to know how it works. What's with this common thought on political crossfire that military service somehow makes everyone such an excellent strategist?

no but it is a big plus in military matters such as iraq 8:)

[Eduffy80911]

californian conservative wrote: A_happy_democrat wrote: Eduffy80911 wrote: I hadn't formed an opinion on Obama because I hadn't heard or read much about him except that he was popular.

This at least gives me a clue.

Pulling out of Iraq would send a strong message, that terrorism works.

It's the politically easy thing to call for and exactly the wrong policy.

Iraq is our problem. The morally correct thing to do is to help the Iraqi's create a stable, free country, even if it can't be done by the next election and even if your party loses votes over it.
Ok explain this to me, why stay for a lost cause. When people are being killed, every day, with out sight of an end. How many people must die before you change your mind. 100? 1,000? 10,000? 20,000?

til there is a referendum in Iraq and a majority asks us to leave. Until then it is our sh*t to deal with.

The cause is only lost when those actually fighting the cause decide its lost. The left has been doing their damndest to convince them to give up, but so far, they're not buying it.

There are young people voluntarily enlisting as we speak, which to many of you is despicable, disgusting, yadda yadda,

To many of us it's inspirational and admirable

and never the twains shall meet.

[californian conservative]

Ek0nomik wrote: You don't have to serve in the military to know how it works. What's with this common thought on political crossfire that military service somehow makes everyone such an excellent strategist?

A difference between how it works and how it should be run. I personally believe that the Commander in Chief should at least have served for a while.

[Moracca]

Obama is pandering to the tide is all. Pretty soon Hitlery her Thighness with have a "change of course" message as well. With the terrorist acts broadcast daily for all to see, the "logical" thing to do is get out. Perhaps if we were shown a balanced view of Iraq this would be different, but we aren't so we've got what we got: The impression that all is bad and we can do nothing to stop it from getting worse. Obama and others are just attaching themselves to this because its easier than trying to work on making Iraq a success.

[californian conservative]

Eduffy80911 wrote: The cause is only lost when those actually fighting the cause decide its lost. The left has been doing their damndest to convince them to give up, but so far, they're not buying it.

There are young people voluntarily enlisting as we speak, which to many of you is despicable, disgusting, yadda yadda,

To many of us it's inspirational and admirable

and never the twains shall meet.

What i meant by that was, if the Iraqis don't want us there, nothing is going to change. However, if the Iraqis do want us it is our duty to be there and help them through this

[soldierofsoul]

Moracca wrote: Obama is pandering to the tide is all. Pretty soon Hitlery her Thighness with have a "change of course" message as well. With the terrorist acts broadcast daily for all to see, the "logical" thing to do is get out. Perhaps if we were shown a balanced view of Iraq this would be different, but we aren't so we've got what we got: The impression that all is bad and we can do nothing to stop it from getting worse. Obama and others are just attaching themselves to this because its easier than trying to work on making Iraq a success.

Very true, Dems love to take the easy way out.

[Eduffy80911]

californian conservative wrote: Eduffy80911 wrote: The cause is only lost when those actually fighting the cause decide its lost. The left has been doing their damndest to convince them to give up, but so far, they're not buying it.

There are young people voluntarily enlisting as we speak, which to many of you is despicable, disgusting, yadda yadda,

To many of us it's inspirational and admirable

and never the twains shall meet.

What i meant by that was, if the Iraqis don't want us there, nothing is going to change. However, if the Iraqis do want us it is our duty to be there and help them through this

I got that, I was actually commenting on the post you commented on

[Ek0nomik]

californian conservative wrote: Ek0nomik wrote: You don't have to serve in the military to know how it works. What's with this common thought on political crossfire that military service somehow makes everyone such an excellent strategist?

A difference between how it works and how it should be run. I personally believe that the Commander in Chief should at least have served for a while.

Why? Do you think he digs up all the intelligence and maps himself? He has a military staff which lays everything out for him, which gives him the best options. The respect and caring for people who serve in the military doesn't have to stem from actual donation of time in such an institution.

[Eduffy80911]

Ek0nomik wrote: californian conservative wrote: Ek0nomik wrote: You don't have to serve in the military to know how it works. What's with this common thought on political crossfire that military service somehow makes everyone such an excellent strategist?

A difference between how it works and how it should be run. I personally believe that the Commander in Chief should at least have served for a while.

Why? Do you think he digs up all the intelligence and maps himself? He has a military staff which lays everything out for him, which gives him the best options. The respect and caring for people who serve in the military doesn't have to stem from actual donation of time in such an institution.

It's been proven many times over that all great players do not make great coaches, and some of the greatest coaches were never very good players.
I would say that knowledge of the game, is critical to success though.

[Otacon]

I really wish that we could pull out of Iraq, but it really isn't an option right now because terrorist cells would take control of the government if we left.