McCain caught in crossfire over U.S. troops' status

[WaywardZest]

Originally Posted by Dolphins9954

There you go. No matter who gets elected troops will remain in Iraq.

I think most everyone knows that by now. Obama has said it several times.

I didn't like it when he talked about immediate withdrawal, so I am pleased with his stance.

[Dolphins9954]

Originally Posted by WaywardZest

I think most everyone knows that by now. Obama has said it several times.

I didn't like it when he talked about immediate withdrawal, so I am pleased with his stance.

It's more than that. The media along with Obama portray him as the one that will end the war in Iraq. And they talk about troop withdrawal from Iraq. But that is not the case. It's troop reduction. Obama will not end our military presence in Iraq at all. That's a myth. The fact remains no matter who gets elected American troops will remain in Iraq for a long time. To say that a vote for Obama is a vote to end the war in Iraq is a falsehood.
I run into Obama supporters who actually think that Obama will end the war in Iraq and get our troops out of there. That is simply not true. The Americans along with the Iraqis really have no choice in the matter. Troops will remain in Iraq for another 4 years until the next election. When hopefully we elect a candidate that will truly get us out of Iraq.

And I really find the traveling to the middle east and Europe with his Campaign plane really distatseful. I was watching Chris Matthews when Obama was arriving in Jordan with his plane with campaign slogans on it.
It's almost like he is running for president of the world. And he acting like he's already president. I don't like what he's doing at all. Campaigning and Foreign Policy should be two different things. All I see is politics and photo ops. Nothing of substance.

[MDFINFAN]

Originally Posted by Dolphins9954

It's more than that. The media along with Obama portray him as the one that will end the war in Iraq. And they talk about troop withdrawal from Iraq. But that is not the case. It's troop reduction. Obama will not end our military presence in Iraq at all. That's a myth. The fact remains no matter who gets elected American troops will remain in Iraq for a long time. To say that a vote for Obama is a vote to end the war in Iraq is a falsehood.
I run into Obama supporters who actually think that Obama will end the war in Iraq and get our troops out of there. That is simply not true. The Americans along with the Iraqis really have no choice in the matter. Troops will remain in Iraq for another 4 years until the next election. When hopefully we elect a candidate that will truly get us out of Iraq.

And I really find the traveling to the middle east and Europe with his Campaign plane really distatseful. I was watching Chris Matthews when Obama was arriving in Jordan with his plane with campaign slogans on it.
It's almost like he is running for president of the world. And he acting like he's already president. I don't like what he's doing at all. Campaigning and Foreign Policy should be two different things. All I see is politics and photo ops. Nothing of substance.

We can't completely take out every soldier, we have interest in Iraq, but he will take the majority and leave a peace keeping type force tbd by military leaders.. We're still trainning the Iraqis, he said he wanted a quick strick force that if insurgents try to regain a foot hold.. but as for a occupying force, we won't be there in that capacity anymore.

Obama is running for president of the world, by being president of the US, it's almost a de facto job for the world..we lead whether you like it or not. As far as the plan having slogans on it, it's the Obama campaign plane, just like McCain has his plane...duh.. That's why Obama's campaign is paying for this trip..

All you see is what we always see when our politicians go over seas.. we never get the full story on the conversations they have with foreign leaders. So start with this craziness, it's like d if Obama goes or d if he doesn't, the man can't win with some of you.. The fact that he's will received across the seas is pissing off a lot of the opposition.. it's so funny to watch the jealousy.. especially after his presidential opponent ask him to go.

[Dolphins9954]

Originally Posted by MDFINFAN

We can't completely take out every soldier, we have interest in Iraq, but he will take the majority and leave a peace keeping type force tbd by military leaders.. We're still trainning the Iraqis, he said he wanted a quick strick force that if insurgents try to regain a foot hold.. but as for a occupying force, we won't be there in that capacity anymore.

Obama is running for president of the world, by being president of the US, it's almost a de facto job for the world..we lead whether you like it or not. As far as the plan having slogans on it, it's the Obama campaign plane, just like McCain has his plane...duh.. That's why Obama's campaign is paying for this trip..

All you see is what we always see when our politicians go over seas.. we never get the full story on the conversations they have with foreign leaders. So start with this craziness, it's like d if Obama goes or d if he doesn't, the man can't win with some of you.. The fact that he's will received across the seas is pissing off a lot of the opposition.. it's so funny to watch the jealousy.. especially after his presidential opponent ask him to go.

50,000 troops along with a alot of Military bases is an occupying force. How would you feel if we had 50,000 Chinese troops along with 14 Chinese military bases in our country? I'm pretty sure we wouldn't like it. And neither will the Iraqis. When thay say they want us to leave they mean all of us. And the fact remains no matter who gets elected troops will remain in Iraq at least for another 4 years. Obama is not offering the end of the war in Iraq or troop withdrawal. It's troop reduction. Obama will not end our military presence in Iraq at all. He will keep us there for years to come. A vote for Obama is not a vote to end the war in Iraq. Even though the majority of Americans and Iraqis want the war to end. No one is listening to them.

I want a president of the United States. Not the world. I don't want a New World Order. I really find Obama flying around in his new campaign plane with slogans all over it very distatsteful. Wasn't this trip suppose to be a fact finding mission. Instead it looks like nothing but campaigning and photo ops. Nothing of substance at all. If Bush or Mccain or any other candidate does this I would totally be against this. You should have a lot more class than this.

[MDFINFAN]

Originally Posted by Dolphins9954

50,000 troops along with a alot of Military bases is an occupying force. How would you feel if we had 50,000 Chinese troops along with 14 Chinese military bases in our country? I'm pretty sure we wouldn't like it. And neither will the Iraqis. When thay say they want us to leave they mean all of us. And the fact remains no matter who gets elected troops will remain in Iraq at least for another 4 years. Obama is not offering the end of the war in Iraq or troop withdrawal. It's troop reduction. Obama will not end our military presence in Iraq at all. He will keep us there for years to come. A vote for Obama is not a vote to end the war in Iraq. Even though the majority of Americans and Iraqis want the war to end. No one is listening to them.

I want a president of the United States. Not the world. I don't want a New World Order. I really find Obama flying around in his new campaign plane with slogans all over it very distatsteful. Wasn't this trip suppose to be a fact finding mission. Instead it looks like nothing but campaigning and photo ops. Nothing of substance at all. If Bush or Mccain or any other candidate does this I would totally be against this. You should have a lot more class than this.

I don't know if that's the final solution, I don't think Obama wanted to have permanent military bases there, I think that's what Bush is trying to get done before he leaves office. So you're on the wrong guy...

You will have a president of the US.. It's just so happen that the world listens to our president, what we do here has an impact on the world, we're not a isolationist society you know. You should be use to that by now. Again on the airplane, it's obama's campaign plane..McCain has slogans on his too.. it's always that way during election season..you're kind of being disingenious with this..that's why Obama's campaign is paying for this trip...just like McCain was force to..I don't think he was going to pay for it, until he was questioned and challenged on it, then his campaign came out and said they'd pay for it.

Bottomline, we don't know the final numbers in troop strength Obama will leave in Iraq, we do know you have to leave some behind...just because Iraq doesn't have a standing military to defend itself..we caused their problem, we have to be a part of the solution... and that means keeping some troops to help out until they are fully on their feet.. That's just common sense and morally right to do.

[Dolphins9954]

Originally Posted by MDFINFAN

I don't know if that's the final solution, I don't think Obama wanted to have permanent military bases there, I think that's what Bush is trying to get done before he leaves office. So you're on the wrong guy...

You will have a president of the US.. It's just so happen that the world listens to our president, what we do here has an impact on the world, we're not a isolationist society you know. You should be use to that by now. Again on the airplane, it's obama's campaign plane..McCain has slogans on his too.. it's always that way during election season..you're kind of being disingenious with this..that's why Obama's campaign is paying for this trip...just like McCain was force to..I don't think he was going to pay for it, until he was questioned and challenged on it, then his campaign came out and said they'd pay for it.

Bottomline, we don't know the final numbers in troop strength Obama will leave in Iraq, we do know you have to leave some behind...just because Iraq doesn't have a standing military to defend itself..we caused their problem, we have to be a part of the solution... and that means keeping some troops to help out until they are fully on their feet.. That's just common sense and morally right to do.

The moral thing to do would be to give them their country back. Obama portrays himself like he is going to end the war. I run into Obama supporters who really think that he is going to end the war and get our troops out. But that is not the case. His plan is to keep 50,000 troops in Iraq for years to come. His own advisors have said so. Which would leave a substanial amount of troops in Iraq. Along with Military bases. Iraq would become the next Korea, Germany, and Japan. A country that would have American troops living there for years to possibly decades. Do Iraqis want that? Do Americans want that? Not only that but what about the cost to keep our troops there for that long. There is no way at all Obama can afford to keep a military presense in Iraq. Along with all his other grand spending plans he has. Every single penny we use on the war in Iraq. Is money that is borrowed. It's nothing but debt. Keeping troops and military bases in Iraq is money that's in the red. Obama's own budget can't be paid for. So how are we going to pay for this? Don't look for our country to turn around economically any time soon.

[MDFINFAN]

Originally Posted by Dolphins9954

The moral thing to do would be to give them their country back. Obama portrays himself like he is going to end the war. I run into Obama supporters who really think that he is going to end the war and get our troops out. But that is not the case. His plan is to keep 50,000 troops in Iraq for years to come. His own advisors have said so. Which would leave a substanial amount of troops in Iraq. Along with Military bases. Iraq would become the next Korea, Germany, and Japan. A country that would have American troops living there for years to possibly decades. Do Iraqis want that? Do Americans want that? Not only that but what about the cost to keep our troops there for that long. There is no way at all Obama can afford to keep a military presense in Iraq. Along with all his other grand spending plans he has. Every single penny we use on the war in Iraq. Is money that is borrowed. It's nothing but debt. Keeping troops and military bases in Iraq is money that's in the red. Obama's own budget can't be paid for. So how are we going to pay for this? Don't look for our country to turn around economically any time soon.

I hear Obama say he'd leave it up to the military commanders to made the decision on how many troops to leave...

You always said Obama doesn't stand up.. Well here's a ad the repubs are running that shows Obama did stand during voting for the war..

The reference is to Obama’s vote on May 24, 2007, against a $120 billion appropriation, most of it for troops fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama had voted for a similar bill weeks earlier that required the administration to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq by Oct. 1, 2007. That bill passed, but President Bush vetoed it. The legislation that replaced it contained no withdrawal language and it passed 80-14 with Obama among the dissenters.

So he did stand up for his principles afterall....

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/07...-mini-berlins/

[Dolphins9954]

Originally Posted by MDFINFAN

I hear Obama say he'd leave it up to the military commanders to made the decision on how many troops to leave...

You always said Obama doesn't stand up.. Well here's a ad the repubs are running that shows Obama did stand during voting for the war..



So he did stand up for his principles afterall....

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/07...-mini-berlins/

At the same time he voted for the last Iraq funding bill and so many others. Did he dissent that time. Yes. But how many times has he voted to fund the war? Countless times. He would have to be consistent with his votes in order to truly stand up. He has voted to fund the war in Iraq so many times. That this vote really means nothing. People like Ron Paul and Dennis Kuncinich are better examples of standing up. They voted against the war and EVERY SINGLE BILL FUNDING THAT WAR. Now that's called standing up. Obama was just playing politics because when he voted against that bill he knew it was going to pass any ways.

[The_Dark_Knight]

Well guys, now that I'm back safe and sound in Iraq, I decided it was time to start catching up, so I'll start on this thread.

Firstly, I get a kick out of some of your posts. I don't intend to sound condescending, but some of you have no idea what you're actually talking about. Some of you are forming opinions based on your own ideas and have no clue what Iraqis themselves actually think or feel. How can anyone truly ask, "do you think that's what the Iraqis want?" when you yourself have no idea? I'm over here guys and I couldn't tell you exactly what the average Iraqi wants. I can express what the Iraqis I work with desire, but does that qualify me to say what every Iraqi wants? Of course not. SO in that aspect, let's keep it a little real, ok?

Now, as far as troops in Iraq is concerned, everyone needs to slow down and take a deep breath. Every article I've read seems to indicate that the positions of McCain and Obama are pretty similiar regarding troop presence in Iraq. The only question is how do we get from here to there? McCain wants commanders on the ground to have the strongest input as to when further reductions can be made and Obama wants a 16 month withdrawal. Ultimately, it's going to come down to the Iraqi government itself. Does the Iraqi government want a US military presence in Iraq? Will the Iraqi government negotiate a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with the United States? Now, I look at things from a tactical standpoint and in that aspect I agree with McCain's stance regarding troops withdrawal. Once commanders on the ground recommend troop reduction...that security and the capability of trained Iraqi forces are adequate to turn over operations to them is sufficient, then reduce troops levels. To me, this is only a common sense approach however, if the Iraqi parliment and PM Nouri Al Maliki state that their government wants the redeployment of US forces, this becomes a moot discussion. However on the other side of this coin, if the Iraqi government still wants US forces present for continued security and training of Iraqi forces, does Obama's position jeopardize the relationship between Iraq and the US? Will the Iraqi government feel betrayed and left vulnerable to outside attacks by insurgents or al qaeda due to US troop withdrawal prior to Iraqi forces achieving an adequate competency level? These are the points that need to be looked at and not the petty political bickering of for or against the war.

One poster called 50,000 troops an occupying force...that should troop levels be reduced to that level, it's still an occupation. Well if that's the case, then we as a nation are occupying Germany, Italy, Spain, Japan and Korea. Should the Iraqi government request or even permit a US request for conitued troops presence in Iraq, it's not an occupation...it's a duty assignment. Many have gotten all hung up on McCain's hundred year presence in Iraq and have taken it to mean a hundred year campaign...a hundred year war...a hundred years of fighting, death and destruction, but does anyone really truly believe this to be the case? One only needs to look at history to see that it's not. Following the surrenders of Germany, Italy and Japan in WWII, there was no need to continued troop presence in these nations, and yet 63 years later, we are still in these nations. Why? To promote US interests in these nations. Does anyone not think that we as a nation do not have interests in the Middle East which include Iraq? Both Presidential candidates feel we do and both want to secure our interests in this region. They just both have different viewpoints on how to get from here to there. Everyone's just going to have to accept the fact that unless the Iraq government demands withdrawal of our troops, we will have permanent bases in Iraq and Iraq will become a duty assignment much as Korea has.

Now for Final Jeopardy and the category is...US Budget. And the answer is...this portion of the US budget accounts for only 6% of the total US budget, 30 seconds players...good luck. If you said the Defense Budget, you're answered right. Granted, the defense budget does not include the war funding packages to support the troops, but when you look at the totality of the US budget, the US government (namely the US congress) is bankrupting our nation not on the money being spent to fund forces conduction operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, but on wasteful pork barrel spending riders added to spending bills that are passed and sent before the President. Want an example? Look at the last war funding bill passed by the congress. The President requested 100 billion dollars and by the time all of the riders were added to the bill, it went from 100 billion to 180 billion (if my memory serves me correctly). That's DOUBLING the amount of money the congress says they don't have to spend to begin with!! So how can you NOT have 100 billion to spend on on our troops in the field and yet you somehow have 80 billion to spend on pork that's not even debated or voted on? Are you kidding me?? And people wonder why the congress has less of an approval rating than the President!!

Ok, I've ranted in this thread long enough. Let me see what hate and discontent I can cause in another thread!! *LOL*

[Dolphins9954]

Originally Posted by The_Dark_Knight

Well guys, now that I'm back safe and sound in Iraq, I decided it was time to start catching up, so I'll start on this thread.

Firstly, I get a kick out of some of your posts. I don't intend to sound condescending, but some of you have no idea what you're actually talking about. Some of you are forming opinions based on your own ideas and have no clue what Iraqis themselves actually think or feel. How can anyone truly ask, "do you think that's what the Iraqis want?" when you yourself have no idea? I'm over here guys and I couldn't tell you exactly what the average Iraqi wants. I can express what the Iraqis I work with desire, but does that qualify me to say what every Iraqi wants? Of course not. SO in that aspect, let's keep it a little real, ok?

Now, as far as troops in Iraq is concerned, everyone needs to slow down and take a deep breath. Every article I've read seems to indicate that the positions of McCain and Obama are pretty similiar regarding troop presence in Iraq. The only question is how do we get from here to there? McCain wants commanders on the ground to have the strongest input as to when further reductions can be made and Obama wants a 16 month withdrawal. Ultimately, it's going to come down to the Iraqi government itself. Does the Iraqi government want a US military presence in Iraq? Will the Iraqi government negotiate a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with the United States? Now, I look at things from a tactical standpoint and in that aspect I agree with McCain's stance regarding troops withdrawal. Once commanders on the ground recommend troop reduction...that security and the capability of trained Iraqi forces are adequate to turn over operations to them is sufficient, then reduce troops levels. To me, this is only a common sense approach however, if the Iraqi parliment and PM Nouri Al Maliki state that their government wants the redeployment of US forces, this becomes a moot discussion. However on the other side of this coin, if the Iraqi government still wants US forces present for continued security and training of Iraqi forces, does Obama's position jeopardize the relationship between Iraq and the US? Will the Iraqi government feel betrayed and left vulnerable to outside attacks by insurgents or al qaeda due to US troop withdrawal prior to Iraqi forces achieving an adequate competency level? These are the points that need to be looked at and not the petty political bickering of for or against the war.

One poster called 50,000 troops an occupying force...that should troop levels be reduced to that level, it's still an occupation. Well if that's the case, then we as a nation are occupying Germany, Italy, Spain, Japan and Korea. Should the Iraqi government request or even permit a US request for conitued troops presence in Iraq, it's not an occupation...it's a duty assignment. Many have gotten all hung up on McCain's hundred year presence in Iraq and have taken it to mean a hundred year campaign...a hundred year war...a hundred years of fighting, death and destruction, but does anyone really truly believe this to be the case? One only needs to look at history to see that it's not. Following the surrenders of Germany, Italy and Japan in WWII, there was no need to continued troop presence in these nations, and yet 63 years later, we are still in these nations. Why? To promote US interests in these nations. Does anyone not think that we as a nation do not have interests in the Middle East which include Iraq? Both Presidential candidates feel we do and both want to secure our interests in this region. They just both have different viewpoints on how to get from here to there. Everyone's just going to have to accept the fact that unless the Iraq government demands withdrawal of our troops, we will have permanent bases in Iraq and Iraq will become a duty assignment much as Korea has.

Now for Final Jeopardy and the category is...US Budget. And the answer is...this portion of the US budget accounts for only 6% of the total US budget, 30 seconds players...good luck. If you said the Defense Budget, you're answered right. Granted, the defense budget does not include the war funding packages to support the troops, but when you look at the totality of the US budget, the US government (namely the US congress) is bankrupting our nation not on the money being spent to fund forces conduction operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, but on wasteful pork barrel spending riders added to spending bills that are passed and sent before the President. Want an example? Look at the last war funding bill passed by the congress. The President requested 100 billion dollars and by the time all of the riders were added to the bill, it went from 100 billion to 180 billion (if my memory serves me correctly). That's DOUBLING the amount of money the congress says they don't have to spend to begin with!! So how can you NOT have 100 billion to spend on on our troops in the field and yet you somehow have 80 billion to spend on pork that's not even debated or voted on? Are you kidding me?? And people wonder why the congress has less of an approval rating than the President!!

Ok, I've ranted in this thread long enough. Let me see what hate and discontent I can cause in another thread!! *LOL*

One thing I know for sure is that the majority of Americans want to end the war in Iraq. In 2006 the Dems were elected in office for just that reason. But once again failed the American people. I also know that the majority of Iraqis want us out of their country. Perhaps as much as 70% of them. And the majority of Iraqis don't want 50,000 troops and military bases to stay in there country for years to come. Just like Korea or Germany. Here is a video of an Iraqi Parliment member saying just that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnyXU5egn-c

In the end our military presence in Iraq can't continue. We can't afford it. And the Americans along with the Iraqis don't want to make Iraq into the next Korea. It doesn't matter who gets elected. Troops will remain in Iraq for a long time. Even though the majority of Americans and Iraqis are against it.

[PATSSUCK]

Originally Posted by Dolphins9954

One thing I know for sure is that the majority of Americans want to end the war in Iraq. In 2006 the Dems were elected in office for just that reason. But once again failed the American people. I also know that the majority of Iraqis want us out of their country. Perhaps as much as 70% of them. And the majority of Iraqis don't want 50,000 troops and military bases to stay in there country for years to come. Just like Korea or Germany. Here is a video of an Iraqi Parliment member saying just that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnyXU5egn-c

In the end our military presence in Iraq can't continue. We can't afford it. And the Americans along with the Iraqis don't want to make Iraq into the next Korea. It doesn't matter who gets elected. Troops will remain in Iraq for a long time. Even though the majority of Americans and Iraqis are against it.

Man you are such an idealist it must be exhausting. How old are you man> It just seems to me that you have a somewhat naive view on the political process of this country and maybe about human nature itself. Hmmm Paul, Kucnich, and every other person like them will NEVER win a presidential election in this country. EVER. Want to know why? because people are sheep and they have been indoctrinated into the two party system. When has a third party ever won a national election? When was the last time they won a state? The rules are rigged and three parties can not compete.

Also as for Paul or any other 3 party candidate, it is very easy to cast unpopular votes when you have no oppostion in your state election and a snowballs chance in hell of winning a national election.

There is no american dream. Those who believe in it are foolish. Its the American dream, because you have to be asleep to believe it. The next president will be either a democrat or republican. The same goes for 2012, 2016, 2020, 2024, etc

As a moderate, I do have to correct you. The democrats did try to set a timeline several times, but guess who was against it???? The President. Thats right he could veto bills and the Congress does not have a 2/3 majority override it.

PS - I am for removing all troops from all areas of the world. I have always found it odd that we have so many bases in other countries. I know why they were established, but its time to bring them home. Unless we wa