McCain: War detractors offer no ideas

[Balt]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: UberNeuman
No. Don't post an item, then demand people to answer to what you've "bolded...."

If you want a place where people don't ask questions or point out your flaws in logic, then you're in the wrong place....

problem is those questions need to be intelligent...
Aslo where are the links to all the various democratic candidates for president`s plan fort ending the war if it goes into the next election?

Why aren`t the democrats actively stopping Bush instead of giving there objections via lip service....

I understand Monika Lewinski was good at lip service.......just ask Hillary`s husband..lol

If you try really hard, maybe you can come up with a witticism that isn't 8 or 9 years old. :roll:

 

[sandorski]

McCain looks more like Dubyah everytime he opens his mouth lately. If you like Dubyah, vote McCain

 

[International Machine Consortium]

Yep. Screw McCain.

Shaaaaadaaaap already with these ridiculous, teeth- gnashing, hand-wringing, whimpering posts covering the same theme.

The Democrats won. Get over it. :thumbsup:

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: International Machine Consortium
Yep. Screw McCain.

Shaaaaadaaaap already with these ridiculous, teeth- gnashing, hand-wringing, whimpering posts covering the same theme.

The Democrats won. Get over it. :thumbsup:

now they need to quit talking and do something...

 

[International Machine Consortium]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: International Machine Consortium
Yep. Screw McCain.

Shaaaaadaaaap already with these ridiculous, teeth- gnashing, hand-wringing, whimpering posts covering the same theme.

The Democrats won. Get over it. :thumbsup:

now they need to quit talking and do something...

You're the ones doing the yapping. Plenty is getting done. The Dems passed 6 bills in the first 100 hours. You're just pissed they won't blindly support Bush's retarded fiasco in Iraq. They shouldn't. It should be allowed to unravel, taking the Republicans with it. They created it, they can enjoy its results.

 

[totalcommand]

Originally posted by: UberNeuman

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Originally posted by: UberNeuman
No. Don't post an item, then demand people to answer to what you've "bolded...."

If you want a place where people don't ask questions or point out your flaws in logic, then you're in the wrong place....

Wow a profjohn fanboy. We have addressed his question and his ridiculously flawed logic based on false premises. He just doesn't like it.

I was addressing PJ and his faulty logic..... Nice way to jump the gun, totalcommand.....

ahh, my sarcasm meter was off. or on when it shouldn't have been.

 

[Siddhartha]

never mind

 

[Lemon law]

To put this thread in proper perspective----McCain is just doing what non Prof John is doing on a grander scale---namely being a forum troll and confusing the issues.

The fact is that GFWB&co.'s entire Iraqi strategy was to be greeted with flowers and candy. And all else would follow from that.------------------when that did not happen they were clueless.

Now after almost four years of giving the Iraqi people the Katrina treatment with things getting now radically worse---the collective republarats have yet to offer up ONE SINGLE NEW PLAN OTHER THAN TO HOLD ON WITH MILITARY MIGHT UNTIL STAYING BECOMES UNTENABLE.---while denying the existence of any diplomatic plans ala the Iraqi study group and to also blame the democrats for the failure of a plan they had no input in. While at the same time denying the democrats any input into any alternate planning or the consultation earned in the 11/06 elections.

I hope this puts this thread and John McCain in proper perspective.

 

[Tom]

"I don't think it's appropriate to say that you disapprove of a mission and you don't want to fund it and you don't want it to go, but yet you don't take the action necessary to prevent it,"

um, the action required is to either convince the current President to stop, or get a new one. so this political tactic of blaming "war detractors" is a fallacious argument, unless they voted for GW Bush.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
McCain: War detractors offer no ideas

Everyone else: McCain offers piss poor ideas.

Maybe we should start calling him John McLame. Full credit to him as a Vietnam POW. After that, he's a lame pandering sellout political whore. He backed Bush after Karl Rove and the Bushewhacko machine ran the same kind of political smear campaign of lies on him that they did with Kerry and the swiftboat liars. Then, after coming from a position of tolerance during his 2000 presidential bid, McCain is pimping himself to that same fringeoid group.

The only other senator that comes to mind who's as far out of touch with reality as McCain is Joe Lieberman. The two of them are so removed from the planet, they could star in their own Looney Tunes cartoons. :roll:

 

[Rainsford]

To be a true opposition party they would have to offer an alternative.

Forgive me for asking the obvious question, but an alternative to what? While I would disagree that the anti-war folks don't have plans, I DO think that the pro-war folks seem to be seriously lacking in any ideas. It's not like the situation is bitching Democrats vs Republicans with a well thought out plan to win the war. The only evidence of a plan I've seen is to be "pro-victory" and then viciously attack anyone who questions that approach. Is THAT the plan the anti-war folks have to offer an alternative to? Because if so, I think they've already exceeded that threshold.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

McCain lost all crediblity after getting slammed by dumbya and company during the election and then nuzzling up to the dumbyaco teat. Pathetic is a good word to describe him, and his opinion means naught.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Except they do and have. They just don't like it and continue to repeat themselves as if nothing else has been said.

So far, all the Dem plans I've seen start with some sort of withdrawl. Obama's seems to be a bit complicated & designed primarily to motivate the current Iraqi government to become successful, with carrot & stick (we leave, etc).

Murtha et al, seems rather simple (and I don't necessarily mean that in a good way), we redeploy to elsewhere in the region. Maybe we come back in if gets really really worse or something?

If there are other Dems plans, or for that matter anybody else's, which are different in some significant way, pls LMK.

As I wrote elsewhere, I think somebody should be attempting to anticipate possible repercussions for whatever we may do. I.e., "game plan out" all possible senarios. Given the curent state of sectarian strife no one forsees a stable benign democracy in Iraq in the near future (or even a few years). So what are the alternatives? What are the ramifications of those alternatives?

Either we guide the outcome, both short-term & long-term, to the best of our nations ability or we become subject to the "whims of chance". Leaving the future to be shaped by others, known & unknown.

But I have seen no evidence of any such rational/logical analysis & long-term planning. I hope its being done & that we get a national discussion of it.

I realize that among the many rabid Bush haters this will be an unpopular statement - But it occurs to me that his "Status Quo" policy for now may end of being the right thing to do until good analysis & planning is completed.

To act precipitously may trigger far more dire global consequences then Shia/Sunni killing in portions of Iraq.

Finally, I fear that the "status quo" can only be maintained for so long. I already hear that the sectarian strife is, perhaps, starting to spread to other countries in the region and even maybe to Detroit here in the USA.

Fern

 

[senseamp]

It's Bush's mess, he is the president, he needs to come out with a good plan. What he wants to do is get the Democrats to buy into his plan so that Republicans can use it against them in 2008, like he did in 2004. Well, it isn't going to fly. GOP screwed the pooch in Iraq, it's going to stay their mess, they are going to be hammered over the head with it in 2008. Democrats are not going to support his plan, when it's obviously a day late and a dollar short. McCain can b!tch and moan all he wants about it, he is going to have to answer for his continuing support of the Iraq war in 2008. If he wants to tie his fortunes to Bush's handling of Iraq war, that's his problem, just don't blame others for not doing it.

 

[judasmachine]

as if throw more money at it is a solution....

the fact that everyone is missing is that there is no solution. both sides are grasping at straws. my idea would be to pull back and let them tear the crap out of each other, as it seems that is all they really want to do.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: judasmachine
as if throw more money at it is a solution....

the fact that everyone is missing is that there is no solution. both sides are grasping at straws. my idea would be to pull back and let them tear the crap out of each other, as it seems that is all they really want to do.

But will the resultig increase in sectarian violence have adverse consequences?

Will Syria and/or Saudia Arabia move in to help their fellow Sunni brethern?

Will it spread to other countries with a mix of Shia & Sunni's?

Will it just "burn out" forest fire that exhausts itself?

I hope somebody in Washington is thinking long-term here, not just for the 2008 elections (which is what I fear).

Fern

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Except they do and have. They just don't like it and continue to repeat themselves as if nothing else has been said.

So far, all the Dem plans I've seen start with some sort of withdrawl. Obama's seems to be a bit complicated & designed primarily to motivate the current Iraqi government to become successful, with carrot & stick (we leave, etc).

Murtha et al, seems rather simple (and I don't necessarily mean that in a good way), we redeploy to elsewhere in the region. Maybe we come back in if gets really really worse or something?

If there are other Dems plans, or for that matter anybody else's, which are different in some significant way, pls LMK.

As I wrote elsewhere, I think somebody should be attempting to anticipate possible repercussions for whatever we may do. I.e., "game plan out" all possible senarios. Given the curent state of sectarian strife no one forsees a stable benign democracy in Iraq in the near future (or even a few years). So what are the alternatives? What are the ramifications of those alternatives?

Either we guide the outcome, both short-term & long-term, to the best of our nations ability or we become subject to the "whims of chance". Leaving the future to be shaped by others, known & unknown.

But I have seen no evidence of any such rational/logical analysis & long-term planning. I hope its being done & that we get a national discussion of it.

I realize that among the many rabid Bush haters this will be an unpopular statement - But it occurs to me that his "Status Quo" policy for now may end of being the right thing to do until good analysis & planning is completed.

To act precipitously may trigger far more dire global consequences then Shia/Sunni killing in portions of Iraq.

Finally, I fear that the "status quo" can only be maintained for so long. I already hear that the sectarian strife is, perhaps, starting to spread to other countries in the region and even maybe to Detroit here in the USA.

Fern

"So far, all the Dem plans I've seen start with some sort of withdrawl. "

What is wrong with that? Just because YOU don't like it, doesn't mean it isn't a valid plan. The post says there are NO ideas... there ARE ideas, but you may not like em... tough crap..

 

[Starbuck1975]

What is wrong with that? Just because YOU don't like it, doesn't mean it isn't a valid plan. The post says there are NO ideas... there ARE ideas, but you may not like em... tough crap..

Perhaps because withdrawal as a strategy plays to the preference of the voting public, but we have yet to see a plan that specifically addresses how such a withdrawal would work.

The Democrats have the majority now...I would expect that Congress should start drafting these alternate plans at an aggressive pace, such that we can finally bring our troops home and end these needless war.

The Republicans lost Congress because the American public is tired of the war in Iraq, or rather the lack of a strategy that will bring our troops home safely, while ensuring that Iraq does not further degrade down a violent spiral that will require a commitment of American forces in the future.

1. People have already posted here about the Democrat response.

A response is not the same as a plan or a strategy.

2. All of your "news" posts are just GOP talking points being relayed in a "news" article. Yet when we show you that reality differs, you ignore it, just like with this post. How many posts in this thread already pointed ou the alternatives?

And many of your responses are typical liberal talking points...this cycle repeats itself over and over again on any thread that deals with Iraq.

This isn't news. The Democrats do have some people proposing ideas, but Bush/Cheney/Snow say "But that would lead to defeat in the war on terrah!" the first time they hear any possibility of an alternative mentioned.

True, but the Democrats now have the power to exercise that voice...to push their ideas past the NeoCon rhetoric...the American people gave them that power.

Because Congress does not dictate military strategy. Or is that fact lost on you. Oh wait....look who I'm replying to.

True, but they do have control over the purse that pays for any military strategy. Now that the Democrats control the purse, my expectation is that they will force Bush to talk with Congress about any future strategy in Iraq.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

What is wrong with that? Just because YOU don't like it, doesn't mean it isn't a valid plan. The post says there are NO ideas... there ARE ideas, but you may not like em... tough crap..

Perhaps because withdrawal as a strategy plays to the preference of the voting public, but we have yet to see a plan that specifically addresses how such a withdrawal would work.

The Democrats have the majority now...I would expect that Congress should start drafting these alternate plans at an aggressive pace, such that we can finally bring our troops home and end these needless war.

The Republicans lost Congress because the American public is tired of the war in Iraq, or rather the lack of a strategy that will bring our troops home safely, while ensuring that Iraq does not further degrade down a violent spiral that will require a commitment of American forces in the future.

1. People have already posted here about the Democrat response.

A response is not the same as a plan or a strategy.

2. All of your "news" posts are just GOP talking points being relayed in a "news" article. Yet when we show you that reality differs, you ignore it, just like with this post. How many posts in this thread already pointed ou the alternatives?

And many of your responses are typical liberal talking points...this cycle repeats itself over and over again on any thread that deals with Iraq.

This isn't news. The Democrats do have some people proposing ideas, but Bush/Cheney/Snow say "But that would lead to defeat in the war on terrah!" the first time they hear any possibility of an alternative mentioned.

True, but the Democrats now have the power to exercise that voice...to push their ideas past the NeoCon rhetoric...the American people gave them that power.

Because Congress does not dictate military strategy. Or is that fact lost on you. Oh wait....look who I'm replying to.

True, but they do have control over the purse that pays for any military strategy. Now that the Democrats control the purse, my expectation is that they will force Bush to talk with Congress about any future strategy in Iraq.

1. I don't know how I could know the liberal talking points since I listen to no media and pretty much just respond to things here.

2. Democratic congress cannot just push things forward... do you remember that little thing called veto power and needing 2/3 majority?

 

[Starbuck1975]

1. I don't know how I could know the liberal talking points since I listen to no media and pretty much just respond to things here.

Maybe you learned them through forum osmosis...the same talking points get repeated so often around here, it could happen.:laugh:

2. Democratic congress cannot just push things forward... do you remember that little thing called veto power and needing 2/3 majority?

The veto is irrelevant at this point. If the Democrats propose viable plans, and Bush vetoes those plans, it will only further sway American opinion against Bush...and it will place the Republicans in an even worse position for 2008.

However, by offering no plans out of fear for a veto, it creates the perception that the Democrats have no ideas either.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Except they do and have. They just don't like it and continue to repeat themselves as if nothing else has been said.

So far, all the Dem plans I've seen start with some sort of withdrawl. Obama's seems to be a bit complicated & designed primarily to motivate the current Iraqi government to become successful, with carrot & stick (we leave, etc).

Murtha et al, seems rather simple (and I don't necessarily mean that in a good way), we redeploy to elsewhere in the region. Maybe we come back in if gets really really worse or something?

If there are other Dems plans, or for that matter anybody else's, which are different in some significant way, pls LMK.

As I wrote elsewhere, I think somebody should be attempting to anticipate possible repercussions for whatever we may do. I.e., "game plan out" all possible senarios. Given the curent state of sectarian strife no one forsees a stable benign democracy in Iraq in the near future (or even a few years). So what are the alternatives? What are the ramifications of those alternatives?

Either we guide the outcome, both short-term & long-term, to the best of our nations ability or we become subject to the "whims of chance". Leaving the future to be shaped by others, known & unknown.

But I have seen no evidence of any such rational/logical analysis & long-term planning. I hope its being done & that we get a national discussion of it.

I realize that among the many rabid Bush haters this will be an unpopular statement - But it occurs to me that his "Status Quo" policy for now may end of being the right thing to do until good analysis & planning is completed.

To act precipitously may trigger far more dire global consequences then Shia/Sunni killing in portions of Iraq.

Finally, I fear that the "status quo" can only be maintained for so long. I already hear that the sectarian strife is, perhaps, starting to spread to other countries in the region and even maybe to Detroit here in the USA.

Fern

Here is the problem with Bush's "status quo" approach. The way you described it there are really two parts. Part one is simply holding steady, keeping things in check but not really solving any problems long term. The second part is to engage in long term policy analysis aimed at determining just what the best way forward is. The most obvious issue is whether or not we are doing the latter...at all. The first part is useless without the second, as it comes at a rather large cost without any foreseeable gain. That's where we are right now in Iraq, we're just "staying the course" (which is STILL what Bush's plan is, new words to describe it notwithstanding) and hoping that victory magically materializes. If we really want victory, we need to get working on the second part. But not only is there little evidence that we're doing so, it also seems rather questionable as to whether or not it's too late to develop a grand strategy.

The reason I say that is because, while I know we're not doing too well on the second part of the plan, I'm not even sure we're doing all that well on the first part. The nature of the conflict has dramatically changed, from being the regular Iraqi people against the terrorists of various stripes, we know have what basically amounts to a civil war between various Iraqi groups. At this point, even wiping out Al-Qaeda in Iraq and other outside parties, we'd still have a major conflict to deal with. I'm not sure if we haven't let things slide too far to "win" without putting a HUGE number of troops on the ground and basically starting over.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
"So far, all the Dem plans I've seen start with some sort of withdrawl. "

What is wrong with that? Just because YOU don't like it, doesn't mean it isn't a valid plan. The post says there are NO ideas... there ARE ideas, but you may not like em... tough crap..

Ok, if the Democrat plan is withdrawal then why aren't they offering it up as a resolution?
Why make a big deal out of this "we don't agree with the surge" resolution?

That was McCain's point. Complaining about Bush's plan without offering your own alternative does not accomplish anything positive.
The Democrats could offer a non-binding resolution tomorrow that says "we in congress feel that all American troops in Iraq should be withdrawn by date X" Why don't they do that?

And all you guys with your Republican talking points get over yourselves already. I am posting what McCain said. He is a very well known and respected member of congress and therefore his comments DO have weight. Especially in lieu of his possible run for the Presidency.

 

[jackschmittusa]

Pointing out that a plan is a bad idea does not require an alternate plan to prove that it is, in fact, a bad idea.

Bush's "victory" in Iraq is a pipe dream. There is no plan that can achieve it.

Bush is chasing unicorns and requiring anyone telling him it will not work to show him a better design for a unicorn trap.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Except they do and have. They just don't like it and continue to repeat themselves as if nothing else has been said.

So far, all the Dem plans I've seen start with some sort of withdrawl. Obama's seems to be a bit complicated & designed primarily to motivate the current Iraqi government to become successful, with carrot & stick (we leave, etc).

Murtha et al, seems rather simple (and I don't necessarily mean that in a good way), we redeploy to elsewhere in the region. Maybe we come back in if gets really really worse or something?

If there are other Dems plans, or for that matter anybody else's, which are different in some significant way, pls LMK.

As I wrote elsewhere, I think somebody should be attempting to anticipate possible repercussions for whatever we may do. I.e., "game plan out" all possible senarios. Given the curent state of sectarian strife no one forsees a stable benign democracy in Iraq in the near future (or even a few years). So what are the alternatives? What are the ramifications of those alternatives?

Either we guide the outcome, both short-term & long-term, to the best of our nations ability or we become subject to the "whims of chance". Leaving the future to be shaped by others, known & unknown.

But I have seen no evidence of any such rational/logical analysis & long-term planning. I hope its being done & that we get a national discussion of it.

I realize that among the many rabid Bush haters this will be an unpopular statement - But it occurs to me that his "Status Quo" policy for now may end of being the right thing to do until good analysis & planning is completed.

To act precipitously may trigger far more dire global consequences then Shia/Sunni killing in portions of Iraq.

Finally, I fear that the "status quo" can only be maintained for so long. I already hear that the sectarian strife is, perhaps, starting to spread to other countries in the region and even maybe to Detroit here in the USA.

Fern

"So far, all the Dem plans I've seen start with some sort of withdrawl. "

What is wrong with that? Just because YOU don't like it, doesn't mean it isn't a valid plan. The post says there are NO ideas... there ARE ideas, but you may not like em... tough crap..

If you would post something of substance with a possible link then maybe people might listen so far all we see are meaningless words with other peoples substance!!

 

[International Machine Consortium]

Talking to yourself again I see.