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
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?
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.
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
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
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.
I am saying if he truely wants to attack Iran(I dont really believe he does unless provoked) he cant.
QFT!
So you're saying that "Straight Talk Express" is bent, broken and shattered.
If the question is about Obama, yes. If it's about Hillary, the answer is no.
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.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 48,074
- 8,511
- 126
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.Originally posted by: Nebor
Doesn't matter. He's better than any of the alternatives. It's hold my nose and vote time.
Nebor
Lifer
- Jun 24, 2003
- 29,586
- 11
- 76
He's a maverick. Don't you get that? A maverick.Originally posted by: Vic
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.Originally posted by: Nebor
Doesn't matter. He's better than any of the alternatives. It's hold my nose and vote time.
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.
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.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 48,074
- 8,511
- 126
Like James Garner or Mel Gibson?Originally posted by: Nebor
He's a maverick. Don't you get that? A maverick.Originally posted by: Vic
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.Originally posted by: Nebor
Doesn't matter. He's better than any of the alternatives. It's hold my nose and vote time.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Question New Apple SoC - M1 - For lower end Macs - Geekbench 5 single-core >1700- Started by Eug
- Replies: 2K
-
Question Speculation: RDNA2 + CDNA Architectures thread- Started by uzzi38
- Replies: 5K
-
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 11K
-
Question 'Ampere'/Next-gen gaming uarch speculation thread
- Started by Ottonomous
- Replies: 5K
Facebook
Twitter