Iraq, like Afghanistan, was completely about terrorism. We're fighting Al-Qaeda there, so that we don't have to fight them here. John McCain, and an increasing number of Americans understand that.

 

Exactly

 

 

H - I'm not buying this tired old line of, "we're fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here." We don't stop them now then they will be at our door step, McCain is a must in my eyes

That is exactly the point. Iraq was never about terrorism. Iraq was not a threat to the United States and by invading Iraq the Bush administration has made this country less safe. That is why we can't afford John McCain. There is no doubt that his knowledge of the tactical use of the military is outstanding. It is his strategic judgement that is lacking.

 

1) Sure it was

2) Sure it was

3) Has made it safer

4) Compared to the alternatives it is outstanding

It still amazes me the lack of understanding of the enemy we're fighting. Yes, if they move to another country we go after them. We can never let up in our pursuit. This is unlike any previous conflict.

What is consistently lacking in most of the posts I am reading is a thoughtful cost/benefit analysis of an open-ended occupation in Iraq. There is not even an acknowledgement of the cost/benefit consideration in our country's ongoing terrorism efforts. I read a lot of posts suggesting that (paraphrasing), "we've got to go after the 'enemy' no matter where he goes and no matter how long it takes and no matter how much it costs". This is unrealistic nonsense. We cannot justify bankrupting our country, destroying our military, and alienating our allies in this clumsy, ineffective use of resources.

 

Those advocating a continuation of George W. Bush's cowboy approach to foreign policy are greatly oversimplifying the issue with their false choice of "fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here." This notion presumes that

 

A) We are actually engaging people in Iraq who would attack the U.S. homeland or assets (i.e. these aren't just insurgents with sectarian or Iraq-localized agendas)

B) These people have the resources and competence to mount successful attacks on the U.S. homeland or assets abroad.

C) Improvements made in intelligence gathering, cooperation with foreign governments, law enforcement awareness, and our general level of vigilance would be ineffective in thwarting such attacks

D) Our military occupation of Iraq is actually producing a net reduction in the worldwide terrorism threat to us (i.e. how do we know we're killing/capturing more 'bad guys' than we're inspiring to attack us?)

E) The expected cost of potential terrorism attacks (given improvements made in domestic terrorism prevention) is greater than the $5 billion per week we are spending in Iraq

 

Each one of these presumptions is highly questionable. If any single one of them is incorrect, the terrorism-prevention justification for remaining in Iraq at the current rate of spending falls apart.

Those advocating a continuation of George W. Bush's cowboy approach to foreign policy are greatly oversimplifying the issue with their false choice of "fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here." This notion presumes that

 

A) We are actually engaging people in Iraq who would attack the U.S. homeland or assets (i.e. these aren't just insurgents with sectarian or Iraq-localized agendas)

B) These people have the resources and competence to mount successful attacks on the U.S. homeland or assets abroad.

C) Improvements made in intelligence gathering, cooperation with foreign governments, law enforcement awareness, and our general level of vigilance would be ineffective in thwarting such attacks

D) Our military occupation of Iraq is actually producing a net reduction in the worldwide terrorism threat to us (i.e. how do we know we're killing/capturing more 'bad guys' than we're inspiring to attack us?)

E) The expected cost of potential terrorism attacks (given improvements made in domestic terrorism prevention) is greater than the $5 billion per week we are spending in Iraq

 

Each one of these presumptions is highly questionable. If any single one of them is incorrect, the terrorism-prevention justification for remaining in Iraq at the current rate of spending falls apart.

 

I agree here. I think it’s important to remember who attacked us in 2001. The hijackers weren’t cast in the mold of an insurgent. For the most part they were educated, intelligent, and well off, living throughout Europe, and later, the U.S. The people picking up rifles and manufacturing bombs in and on their way to Iraq are uneducated and expendable. Our best defense against terrorism is a better (reformed is probably the better word) intelligence community, capable of sniffing out, communicating and blocking threats before they are realized.

 

However, I’m also leery of pulling out of Iraq in haste. I’m of the notion that we created a mess and we need to clean it up. I fear we are in danger of creating a bigger problem if we botch the withdraw, causing increased tumult, a more powerful Iran and our eventual reengagement in the region, except with higher stakes.

 

I don’t think any candidate has expressed an opinion on the subject that I’ve fully agreed with. It’s a complex and delicate issue that has become a campaign commercial.

However, I’m also leery of pulling out of Iraq in haste. I’m of the notion that we created a mess and we need to clean it up. I fear we are in danger of creating a bigger problem if we botch the withdraw, causing increased tumult, a more powerful Iran and our eventual reengagement in the region, expect with higher stakes.

 

I don’t think any candidate has expressed an opinion on the subject that I’ve fully agreed with. It’s a complex and delicate issue that has become a campaign commercial.

 

 

Agreed. We need to set a timetable to give the Iraqis incentive to get their house in order. The "blank check" approach we have followed for five years has not come close to producing the desired result of an independent, self-governing Iraq.

I agree here. I think it’s important to remember who attacked us in 2001. The hijackers weren’t cast in the mold of an insurgent. For the most part they were educated, intelligent, and well off, living throughout Europe, and later, the U.S. The people picking up rifles and manufacturing bombs in and on their way to Iraq are uneducated and expendable. Our best defense against terrorism is a better (reformed is probably the better word) intelligence community, capable of sniffing out, communicating and blocking threats before they are realized.

 

However, I’m also leery of pulling out of Iraq in haste. I’m of the notion that we created a mess and we need to clean it up. I fear we are in danger of creating a bigger problem if we botch the withdraw, causing increased tumult, a more powerful Iran and our eventual reengagement in the region, except with higher stakes.

 

I don’t think any candidate has expressed an opinion on the subject that I’ve fully agreed with. It’s a complex and delicate issue that has become a campaign commercial.

 

Both you and H are right one where I am at. My hope is that if McCain is elected he will do his best to minimize our presence in Iraq as quickly as possible and be more prudent with when and where he deploys our troops. :thumb:

It still amazes me the lack of understanding of the enemy we're fighting. Yes, if they move to another country we go after them. We can never let up in our pursuit. This is unlike any previous conflict.

 

What amazes me is the complete lack of understanding on the part of some (including John McCain) of what an incredible strategic blunder Iraq was and is. McCain only sees it in tactical terms. That is why he is unfit to be President.

What amazes me is the complete lack of understanding on the part of some (including John McCain) of what an incredible strategic blunder Iraq was and is. McCain only sees it in tactical terms. That is why he is unfit to be President.

 

I thought McCain was the one Republican that was railing on Rumsfield being unfit to lead and was messing it up?

This notion presumes that

 

A) We are actually engaging people in Iraq who would attack the U.S. homeland or assets.

We are.

 

B) These people have the resources and competence to mount successful attacks on the U.S. homeland or assets abroad.

They do.

 

C) Improvements made in intelligence gathering, cooperation with foreign governments, law enforcement awareness, and our general level of vigilance would be ineffective in thwarting such attacks

It would be effective...but insufficient.

 

D) Our military occupation of Iraq is actually producing a net reduction in the worldwide terrorism threat to us

Any 9/11's lately?

 

 

E) The expected cost of potential terrorism attacks (given improvements made in domestic terrorism prevention) is greater than the $5 billion per week we are spending in Iraq.

It's not just about money; it's about lives. Yes' we're losing soldiers in the fight. But the risks of doing nothing are so much higher than that.

What amazes me is the complete lack of understanding on the part of some (including John McCain) of what an incredible strategic blunder Iraq was and is. McCain only sees it in tactical terms. That is why he is unfit to be President.

Assuming of course that you are right...which you aren't.

We are.

 

They do.

 

^ I'm a person who needs to be convinced. What evidence can you provide?

 

 

It would be effective...but insufficient.

 

?

 

 

Any 9/11's lately?

 

No, but there haven't been any triple crown winners lately either. Truth is, neither has much to do with the Iraq war. Never did, never will.

 

 

It's not just about money; it's about lives. Yes' we're losing soldiers in the fight. But the risks of doing nothing are so much higher than that.

 

Oh come now. If we put a policeman in every house in America, we could probably prevent nearly all homicides. Are you telling me we should pay for that idea just because lives would be saved?

^

 

 

Oh come now. If we put a policeman in every house in America, we could probably prevent nearly all homicides. Are you telling me we should pay for that idea just because lives would be saved?

 

If it is like the policeman I know, I couldn't afford to feed them.:lol:

What amazes me is the complete lack of understanding on the part of some (including John McCain) of what an incredible strategic blunder Iraq was and is. McCain only sees it in tactical terms. That is why he is unfit to be President.

 

I can appreciate your position on that point, although I do not necessarily agree that we can tell at this point if it was a strategic blunder. If Iraq was to develop a stable economy and some type of democracy that could be used as a spring board to eventually bring some stability to all of the middle East, then I would hope you would agree that invading Iraq and removing Hussein was a brilliant strategic move, correct?

If it is like the policeman I know, I couldn't afford to feed them.:lol:

 

There's got to be a doughnut joke in there somewhere. :sssh::lol: