• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

If elected, which John McCain will become president?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,086
493
126
If peace existed in Iraq tomorrow we would be in Iraq for years if not decades to come. Our sphere of influence is nearly everywhere.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
48,074
8,511
126
Originally posted by: Genx87
If peace existed in Iraq tomorrow we would be in Iraq for years if not decades to come. Our sphere of influence is nearly everywhere.
We could talk IF's forever.

If all McCain was talking about was a military base in Basra, he might have my support.

But he's not, and it's intentionally misleading on his part to pretend that he is when his actual agenda from his own website is Surge Part II.

It makes me wonder... will we still be talking about military bases while our bombs are falling on Tehran?
 

dphantom

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2005
4,514
140
106
Originally posted by: Vic
I'm sure that has something to do with the fact that situation in Iraq is not similar to that in Japan, Germany, or SK.

So, it's not that McCain's comments were incorrectly attributed, but that he was being intentionally misleading in his use of analogy.
I disagree he was intentionally misleading. He was very clear in what he meant and that was not 100 years of war but 100 years of presence in a volatile and strategically important part of the world.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,086
493
126
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Genx87
If peace existed in Iraq tomorrow we would be in Iraq for years if not decades to come. Our sphere of influence is nearly everywhere.
We could talk IF's forever.

If all McCain was talking about was a military base in Basra, he might have my support.

But he's not, and it's intentionally misleading on his part to pretend that he is when his actual agenda from his own website is Surge Part II.

It makes me wonder... will we still be talking about military bases while our bombs are falling on Tehran?
You honestly believe McCain wants and thinks we will be fighting for 100 years? A 100 year war? Give me a break.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
48,074
8,511
126
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Genx87
If peace existed in Iraq tomorrow we would be in Iraq for years if not decades to come. Our sphere of influence is nearly everywhere.
We could talk IF's forever.

If all McCain was talking about was a military base in Basra, he might have my support.

But he's not, and it's intentionally misleading on his part to pretend that he is when his actual agenda from his own website is Surge Part II.

It makes me wonder... will we still be talking about military bases while our bombs are falling on Tehran?
You honestly believe McCain wants and thinks we will be fighting for 100 years? A 100 year war? Give me a break.
Sigh... no, I don't.

What I really believe is that he wants to escalate the already unpopular conflict in the ME while at the same time fooling the American people into believing that it would be no different than our bases in Japan, Germany, and SK.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,086
493
126
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Genx87
If peace existed in Iraq tomorrow we would be in Iraq for years if not decades to come. Our sphere of influence is nearly everywhere.
We could talk IF's forever.

If all McCain was talking about was a military base in Basra, he might have my support.

But he's not, and it's intentionally misleading on his part to pretend that he is when his actual agenda from his own website is Surge Part II.

It makes me wonder... will we still be talking about military bases while our bombs are falling on Tehran?
You honestly believe McCain wants and thinks we will be fighting for 100 years? A 100 year war? Give me a break.
Sigh... no, I don't.

What I really believe is that he wants to escalate the already unpopular conflict in the ME while at the same time fooling the American people into believing that it would be no different than our bases in Japan, Germany, and SK.
I think he wants to surge in Iraq. Going after Iran I highly doubt. I just dont see how he would get that by a Democratic congress or the American people.

 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,034
1
61
And let's not forget his comments during the debates. "If we leave, Al Qaida will take over the country." :roll:
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,034
1
61
Originally posted by: Genx87
Going after Iran I highly doubt. I just dont see how he would get that by a Democratic congress or the American people.
Getting a war in Iraq was easy as pie for Bush. The Dem's were pissing in their pants at the idea.

And getting it past these people, well, McCain won't have any problems here...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjMRgT5o-Ig
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
48,074
8,511
126
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Genx87
If peace existed in Iraq tomorrow we would be in Iraq for years if not decades to come. Our sphere of influence is nearly everywhere.
We could talk IF's forever.

If all McCain was talking about was a military base in Basra, he might have my support.

But he's not, and it's intentionally misleading on his part to pretend that he is when his actual agenda from his own website is Surge Part II.

It makes me wonder... will we still be talking about military bases while our bombs are falling on Tehran?
You honestly believe McCain wants and thinks we will be fighting for 100 years? A 100 year war? Give me a break.
Sigh... no, I don't.

What I really believe is that he wants to escalate the already unpopular conflict in the ME while at the same time fooling the American people into believing that it would be no different than our bases in Japan, Germany, and SK.
I think he wants to surge in Iraq. Going after Iran I highly doubt. I just dont see how he would get that by a Democratic congress or the American people.
The point is that he would if he could.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,086
493
126
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: Genx87
Going after Iran I highly doubt. I just dont see how he would get that by a Democratic congress or the American people.
Getting a war in Iraq was easy as pie for Bush. The Dem's were pissing in their pants at the idea.

And getting it past these people, well, McCain won't have any problems here...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjMRgT5o-Ig
This was hot off the heels of 9-11. After 6+ years of occupation that is clearly unpopular. The Dems would have to commit politcal suicide to grant any wish McCain "may" have at striking Iran.

 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,086
493
126
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Genx87
If peace existed in Iraq tomorrow we would be in Iraq for years if not decades to come. Our sphere of influence is nearly everywhere.
We could talk IF's forever.

If all McCain was talking about was a military base in Basra, he might have my support.

But he's not, and it's intentionally misleading on his part to pretend that he is when his actual agenda from his own website is Surge Part II.

It makes me wonder... will we still be talking about military bases while our bombs are falling on Tehran?
You honestly believe McCain wants and thinks we will be fighting for 100 years? A 100 year war? Give me a break.
Sigh... no, I don't.

What I really believe is that he wants to escalate the already unpopular conflict in the ME while at the same time fooling the American people into believing that it would be no different than our bases in Japan, Germany, and SK.
I think he wants to surge in Iraq. Going after Iran I highly doubt. I just dont see how he would get that by a Democratic congress or the American people.
The point is that he would if he could.
I am saying if he truely wants to attack Iran(I dont really believe he does unless provoked) he cant.


 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Administrator
Oct 9, 1999
35,052
28
86
Originally posted by: bamacre
I hope we never find out.
QFT!

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
Hmm, sounds like he might be a politician.
So you're saying that "Straight Talk Express" is bent, broken and shattered.

Are you suggesting the candidate you support is above that?
If the question is about Obama, yes. If it's about Hillary, the answer is no.
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,136
37
91
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Genx87
If peace existed in Iraq tomorrow we would be in Iraq for years if not decades to come. Our sphere of influence is nearly everywhere.
We could talk IF's forever.

If all McCain was talking about was a military base in Basra, he might have my support.

But he's not, and it's intentionally misleading on his part to pretend that he is when his actual agenda from his own website is Surge Part II.

It makes me wonder... will we still be talking about military bases while our bombs are falling on Tehran?
You honestly believe McCain wants and thinks we will be fighting for 100 years? A 100 year war? Give me a break.
Sigh... no, I don't.

What I really believe is that he wants to escalate the already unpopular conflict in the ME while at the same time fooling the American people into believing that it would be no different than our bases in Japan, Germany, and SK.
I think he wants to surge in Iraq. Going after Iran I highly doubt. I just dont see how he would get that by a Democratic congress or the American people.
The point is that he would if he could.
I am saying if he truely wants to attack Iran(I dont really believe he does unless provoked) he cant.
With Lieberman's hand up his ass, I don't think he'll need too hard an evidence to attack Iran.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
101,374
5,375
126
Originally posted by: Harvey

If the question is about Obama, yes. If it's about Hillary, the answer is no.
obama is above flip-flopping? doubt it.
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,136
37
91
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: Harvey

If the question is about Obama, yes. If it's about Hillary, the answer is no.
obama is above flip-flopping? doubt it.
I'm not sure but McCain is far worse than Kerry and its been so blatant and shameful that people that supported him in 2000 must be appalled at what he's doing. He's simply unpredictable at this point and with Lieberman acting as his minder, only bad things can come from his administration.
 

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,586
11
76
Doesn't matter. He's better than any of the alternatives. It's hold my nose and vote time. :(
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
48,074
8,511
126
Originally posted by: Nebor
Doesn't matter. He's better than any of the alternatives. It's hold my nose and vote time. :(
I suggest you sniff at the 3 shit-piles again. McCain's only foreign policy is to drop bombs and his domestic agenda is non-existent.
 

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,586
11
76
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Nebor
Doesn't matter. He's better than any of the alternatives. It's hold my nose and vote time. :(
I suggest you sniff at the 3 shit-piles again. McCain's only foreign policy is to drop bombs and his domestic agenda is non-existent.
He's a maverick. Don't you get that? A maverick.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,268
4
0
If elected which Obama will become President?

The one who claims that he can unite the country?
Or
The one who has the most liberal voting record in the Senate and has NO track record of ever working with Republicans on any issue.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,268
4
0
I think McCain could be a far more successful President than you liberals think.

He has a record of working with Democrats to accomplish stuff. The people in congress will remember this and will work with McCain to get bills passed.

Obama on the other hand has no track record of working with Republicans which means the Republicans in congress are going to be far less likely to want to listen to Obama or work with him. This could result in grid lock in which nothing meaningful gets done.

There is historical precedence to what I say.
During Clinton's first two years the Republicans refused to work with and the results were a disaster for the Democrats in the 1994 election. Afterwards Clinton worked with the new Republican leadership and a lot was accomplished.

Post 9-11 Republicans and Democrats worked together to pass a lot of bills, but post 2004 election things with the war got bitter and nothing meaningful has come out of Bush's second term.
 

ericlp

Diamond Member
Dec 24, 2000
6,079
186
106
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: Vic
The McSame who wants 100 years of war is the one who would become President.
Look who's trolling... again. Is that all you know?

Ain't it enough to NOT vote for him? IS for me.

 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
48,074
8,511
126
Originally posted by: Nebor
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Nebor
Doesn't matter. He's better than any of the alternatives. It's hold my nose and vote time. :(
I suggest you sniff at the 3 shit-piles again. McCain's only foreign policy is to drop bombs and his domestic agenda is non-existent.
He's a maverick. Don't you get that? A maverick.
Like James Garner or Mel Gibson?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY