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?

This statement is actually kind of frightening. Yikes! :eek:

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.

Definitely has. The silence speaks for itself.

There are some really good posts here covering both pros and cons. But I'm not sure McCain or anyone can "finish" the job in Iraq. I will bet the farm that when the U S pulls out, the one with the most guns will then be in power ! Those people think ,if you don't beleive the way I do, I'll just kill you ! With or without the U S the fighting will never stop 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.

 

at the current rate of spending falls apart

 

I do not believe anyone plans on keeping spending where it is now, it will just stay there until things are under control. That is what I believe and it makes sense. Just like in Germany, Japan, S. Korea, ect.. We no longer spend $ or resources like we did until things were under control.

There are some really good posts here covering both pros and cons. But I'm not sure McCain or anyone can "finish" the job in Iraq. I will bet the farm that when the U S pulls out, the one with the most guns will then be in power ! Those people think ,if you don't beleive the way I do, I'll just kill you ! With or without the U S the fighting will never stop in Iraq.

 

Hard to say. What I am hearing and reading of late is that more and more of the average Iraqi people (not the insurgents) have come and are coming to appreciate what America is trying to do for them. Maybe if we stay the course we can open the eyes of more and more people in the middle East that America is not the villian we are villified to be. Maybe we can change the way they think. If the Irish and Brits can become weary of war and terrorism and find a way to co-exist, why can't the Iraqi people? It sounds like that is already happening and we are getting much improved cooperation from the Iraqi people in fighting the insurgents. And I do appreciate the cost to America not only in dollars but more importantly in American lives.

 

Perhaps if the American people opposed to our presence in Iraq would quit claiming that we are there just for the oil, or just because Bush wanted to get revenge on Hussein for threatening to assasinate Bush Sr, or for whatever cockamanny reasons they come up with, then more of the Iraqi people would realize and accept that we are there for what I think are noble reasons: peace, democracy and stability in Iraq (all of which are also in our best interests also). I hope that 60 years from now, historians will look back at Bush's decision and commend him for having the political courage and foresight to do what he did.

 

.

Perhaps if the American people opposed to our presence in Iraq would quit claiming that we are there just for the oil, or just because Bush wanted to get revenge on Hussein for threatening to assasinate Bush Sr, or for whatever cockamanny reasons they come up with...

The scary thing is that there are so many people in this country that actually buy into that nonsense! :eek:

at the current rate of spending falls apart

 

I do not believe anyone plans on keeping spending where it is now, it will just stay there until things are under control. That is what I believe and it makes sense. Just like in Germany, Japan, S. Korea, ect.. We no longer spend $ or resources like we did until things were under control.

 

The only problem with that argument, TP, is that nobody planned to be in Iraq with 165,000 combat troops five years after the invasion either, yet here we are. And the cost of the war is going the wrong way: in 2003, emergency appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan totaled $76 billion, 2004-$74 billion. Since then, the annual cost has steadily risen each and every year through 2007 ($165 billion). The Bush Administration's request for 2008 will total $188 billion.

 

I guarantee if the average American saw a line item on his or her paycheck taking out taxes to pay for the Iraq war, there would be a lot less tolerance of this foolishness. But, since it is being put on our national credit card, most are blissfully ignorant...

Perhaps if the American people opposed to our presence in Iraq would quit claiming that we are there just for the oil, or just because Bush wanted to get revenge on Hussein for threatening to assasinate Bush Sr, or for whatever cockamanny reasons they come up with.

 

If the American people are confused about the reason we are in Iraq, it is only because we have been told one cockamamy reason after another by the President. If he hadn't deliberately tried to scare everyone into supporting the war with talk of mushroom clouds over American cities and bogus connections to 9/11, no one would have been in favor of spending >>$1 trillion just to kill Saddam and "create a beacon of freedom in the middle east" or whatever warm and fuzzy goal we have this week.

The scary thing is that there are so many people in this country that actually buy into that nonsense! :eek:

 

You have to wonder about Haliburton getting there so fast ? I know I was amazed ! However , maybe after it's all said and done they will repay us with $109.00 a barrel oil ?:sssh:

If the American people are confused about the reason we are in Iraq, it is only because we have been told one cockamamy reason after another by the President. If he hadn't deliberately tried to scare everyone into supporting the war with talk of mushroom clouds over American cities and bogus connections to 9/11, no one would have been in favor of spending >>$1 trillion just to kill Saddam and "create a beacon of freedom in the middle east" or whatever warm and fuzzy goal we have this week.

 

Yeah, yeah, yeah. And your very partisan spin about warm and fuzzy goal we have this week is, pardon my bluntness, is a very weak. I know due to your hatred for Bush you are blinded to reality, but there was intel that supported what Bush was telling us. Was there conflicting intel, sure there was, but if I'm President, I address the worst threat and go from there. You wouldn't, I understand. You would have given Hussein more time, and more time and more time. But you have to admit that there are valid reasons for taking a course of action that is different than yours. Well you have to admit it if you are being fair in your judgment, that is.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. And your very partisan spin about warm and fuzzy goal we have this week is, pardon my bluntness, is a very weak. I know due to your hatred for Bush you are blinded to reality, but there was intel that supported what Bush was telling us. Was there conflicting intel, sure there was, but if I'm President, I address the worst threat and go from there. You wouldn't, I understand. You would have given Hussein more time, and more time and more time. But you have to admit that there are valid reasons for taking a course of action that is different than yours. Well you have to admit it if you are being fair in your judgment, that is.

Facts don't matter to some on here, LN. You're wasting your time.

I want a President who will be a Commander in Chief to the military, and actually know what it is like to serve. I want the President to be held accountable just like an officer or enlisted person would be for moral misconduct. I wasn't able to watch a lot of the debates early due to personal commitments after work. I know who I don't want in office.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. And your very partisan spin about warm and fuzzy goal we have this week is, pardon my bluntness, is a very weak. I know due to your hatred for Bush you are blinded to reality, but there was intel that supported what Bush was telling us. Was there conflicting intel, sure there was, but if I'm President, I address the worst threat and go from there. You wouldn't, I understand. You would have given Hussein more time, and more time and more time. But you have to admit that there are valid reasons for taking a course of action that is different than yours. Well you have to admit it if you are being fair in your judgment, that is.

 

Once again, the big bad faulty intel becomes the fall guy for Bush's complete lapse in critical thinking and judgment. I just hope that (whoever gets elected this fall), our next president will consider ambiguity a reason to dig deeper, as opposed to an excuse to shoot from the hip.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. And your very partisan spin about warm and fuzzy goal we have this week is, pardon my bluntness, is a very weak. I know due to your hatred for Bush you are blinded to reality, but there was intel that supported what Bush was telling us. Was there conflicting intel, sure there was, but if I'm President, I address the worst threat and go from there. You wouldn't, I understand. You would have given Hussein more time, and more time and more time. But you have to admit that there are valid reasons for taking a course of action that is different than yours. Well you have to admit it if you are being fair in your judgment, that is.

 

While there was legitimate evidence that supported the President, there was paper thin evidence that supported him as well. And the paper thin stuff was relied on just as heavily as anything concrete we had. Specifically, the sources of Rafid Ahmed Alwan and Joseph Wilson’s New York Times article that ignited the Scooter Libby case. It also seems to me there was an unnatural predisposition to target Iraq following 9/11 among some members of the Bush administration, most prominently among Rumsfeld and Feith. Simply stated, no matter how you slice it there was a degree of negligence involved that lead us to war. Now, I’m not a fanatic that is going to argue that George Bush is a liar or had ulterior motives to get oil or avenge his dad, but for a war as costly as this one has been, the intel, planning and execution was sloppy, which I find worthy of criticism. However, no persons’ hands are clean in this situation, including John McCain’s and the rest of Congress.

 

The matter at hand now is an absolution to this mess. I think McCain has adequately shown that he is not a pawn of the administration, and his opinion has significantly differed from those of the administration, and I think he’s been right more than wrong so far. Of the three candidates left, Clinton advocates a complete withdraw no matter how it unfolds on the ground, Obama advocates a withdraw but is willing to listen to military advisors and alter the strategy depending on what happens on the ground (at least some members of his staff have argued), and McCain advocates a continued presence until, presumably, the state is safe for a withdraw. It isn’t exactly Christmas morning for me, but of the three I feel McCain’s is the best strategy, but certainly the most costly.

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

 

You do understand the difference between tactical and strategic don't you?