Does McCain have enough knowlege of Iraq?

[Phil Ayesho]

McCain is an old flip flopper who was a good egg a few years ago, but has since committed ethical harikari in order to get the endorsement of his own party.


He is still fuming about the whole Losing the Vietnam War thing, and like a lot of old time VN vets, he deeply believed that if HE had been commander and chief we would have won that war.

He delusionally is imagining Iraq as his opportunity to prove that we could have won the war he fought in as a young man.

He will lead us to further disaster and infamy... and by denying the democratic majority any real opportunity for change... he will STALL any actual progress that might be possible.


At this point... we NEED a naive democrat...
Not some wiley old woman with deep connections and deeper debts to pay back....

Obama would have the virtue of being less corrupted by a lifetime in big league politics... he would be able to build consensus as most congressional bills will still require support by both parties... but the majority will not be stymied by presidential veto.


I am not crazy about democrats... I think both parties are chock full of criminals and scoundrels out for a quick buck....

But after 12 years of republican dominance... and 12 years of absolute failure to plan for the future... its time for a change...
IF only to shake up the republican party and, maybe, re-calibrate their idea of government.



My dream election?

WHOEVER is in power, now... vote them OUT regardless of their party affiliation. ( except when the alternative is voting back in someone who was in power even longer)

What we need is an entirely NAIVE and idealistic congress... get rid of anyone who knows how to "work the system" because that is just a euphemism for selling off congressional votes to the highest bidder.

Clear house.

And senate.

And as a rule of thumb, when faced with choices...

Vote for non-incumbent WOMEN whenever possible.

Vote for Democrats for all judge-ships... and most justice position. They, at least, believe in individual liberty and the bill of rights.

 

[HazelGod]

I see... I'm sophomoric

Yes, and the fact that you chose only to respond to the chastisement of your behavior without addressing the substantive point of discussion proves it.

I've said this before - your past history is not enough, you need situational awareness on the current conflict. Running on your past military experience 30 years ago - doesn't give you situational awareness on what is happening on the ground now.

According to grampa John, things are "quiet" in Mosul, too. Meanwhile, in the real world, three suicide bombings in Mosul kill another thirty human beings and injure dozens more...yet he claims that it's Obama who needs to be enlightened on the current state of affairs in the region.

My dream election?

WHOEVER is in power, now... vote them OUT regardless of their party affiliation. ( except when the alternative is voting back in someone who was in power even longer)

What we need is an entirely NAIVE and idealistic congress... get rid of anyone who knows how to "work the system" because that is just a euphemism for selling off congressional votes to the highest bidder.

Clear house.
And senate.

And as a rule of thumb, when faced with choices...
Vote for non-incumbent candidates whenever possible.
Vote for Libertarians for all judge-ships... and most justice position. They, at least, believe in individual liberty and the bill of rights.

Fantastic post, Phil...echoes my sentiments almost exactly, save for the minor corrections above. :wink:

 

[VeeP]

Yes, and the fact that you chose only to respond to the chastisement of your behavior without addressing the substantive point of discussion proves it.

Wrong. You sir, chose to ignore the 'substantive point' of my prior post (Obama's neglect of his oversight committee chairman's duties since Jan. 2007 in lieu of campaigning for POTUS) in favor of launching your shameless, self-aggrandizing tirade. I have no interest in discussing anything with he who engages in vulgar name-calling.

My dream election?

WHOEVER is in power, now... vote them OUT regardless of their party affiliation. ( except when the alternative is voting back in someone who was in power even longer)

What we need is an entirely NAIVE and idealistic congress... get rid of anyone who knows how to "work the system" because that is just a euphemism for selling off congressional votes to the highest bidder.

Clear house.

And senate.

Amen. Implement congressional term limits, at the very least.

 

[1BiGG1]

I don't know where you sourced you figures but from the ones I use China's GDP (PPP 2007) is actually $7 Trillion (excluding Hong Kong with a 2007 est of $296 billion and Macau at $10 Billion). In PPP terms China is second at 50% of the US GDP. In nominal GDP terms ($3.25 trillion) China is as you say, fourth. No matter.

Funny you should mention denial. I hate to burst your bubble. But Global GDP (PPP 2007) is around $65.8 trillion, of which the US accounts for $13.8 trillion or 21%. Or, if you want to use nominal GDP figures the % rises to 13.8/54 or 25%. It will no doubt surprise you therefore that in 1600 India accounted for 22% of estimated global GDP. Depending on your level of ... denial that's either more, or darned close.

Anyway, it's estimated that in 1 AD Indian contribution was almost 33% and India remained ahead of the US in terms of global GDP% until almost 1900. I appreciate that financial records are a bit shaky that far back and the US didn't exist in 1 AD or even (technically) in 1600 and I further agree Indian income was in part (especially in the early example) partly 'empire' sourced - but then you cast your challenge rather wide, didn't you?

My point was to illustrate that while the US is predominant today, it has not always been so, and probably will not be so in the near future, with that thought and to further deflate you, it's fairly generally accepted that the US will be in the #2 spot within 20 years. Besides, I don't measure 'greatness' in strictly monetary terms.

GDP Sources
Report for Selected Countries and Subjects
Report for Selected Country Groups and Subjects
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2001rank.html

You don’t have too worry about bursting my bubble a bit! You can find economic data here…

Economy Weblog: Ten largest economies in the world - Instituto de Empresa Business School

The World Bank

… and the CIA estimates China becoming the #1 economy somewhere in the late 2040’s last I read. Where are you getting 20 years from?

 

[HazelGod]

Wrong. You sir, chose to ignore the 'substantive point' of my prior post (Obama's neglect of his oversight committee chairman's duties since Jan. 2007 in lieu of campaigning for POTUS)

I ignored nothing...I'm just smart enough to recognize a tar baby for what it is when I see one. It's exactly the sort of intellectual dishonesty that I called you out for to begin with, douchebag.

 

[dong20]

You don’t have too worry about bursting my bubble a bit! You can find economic data here…

Economy Weblog: Ten largest economies in the world - Instituto de Empresa Business School

The World Bank

… and the CIA estimates China becoming the #1 economy somewhere in the late 2040’s last I read. Where are you getting 20 years from?

Sorry, typo I'd meant 30 years. Duly edited. There's various sources with varying estimates.

BTW, figures in the links you provided (and used in your post without citation) are for 2006, I used and cited 2007 figures.

 

[1BiGG1]

I suspect the greatest countries are those that go about quietly living their lives minding their own business. Plenty of countries have higher standards of living than we do and most of them are prosperous and thrifty. Many of them have managed to be so longer than we have been around.

Who is on your list that has not relied on the United States Military Machine, also known as the Greatest Super Power ever known for protection allowing them to be prosperous & thrifty? Who broke the back of the USSR while at the same time kept China in-check militarily all these years? Who has been at the forefront of dealing with the religious wacko’s in the Middle East? Ever think maybe others have it so good because we do the dirty work allowing their leisurely lifestyles?

 

[D_Fiona_Farvel]

Who is on your list that has not relied on the United States Military Machine, also known as the Greatest Super Power ever known for protection allowing them to be prosperous & thrifty? Who broke the back of the USSR while at the same time kept China in-check militarily all these years? Who has been at the forefront of dealing with the religious wacko’s in the Middle East? Ever think maybe others have it so good because we do the dirty work allowing their leisurely lifestyles?

I think you take a very Americentric view - there is little the U.S. has accomplished without the assistance of other nations. Further, it seems that you are gauging historical, world greatness by what has transpired over 60 years - the glory years, if you will. That is an incredibly short view, particularly for a country seemingly on the decline.

 

[2322]

Who is on your list that has not relied on the United States Military Machine, also known as the Greatest Super Power ever known for protection allowing them to be prosperous & thrifty? Who broke the back of the USSR while at the same time kept China in-check militarily all these years? Who has been at the forefront of dealing with the religious wacko’s in the Middle East? Ever think maybe others have it so good because we do the dirty work allowing their leisurely lifestyles?

Switzerland

The USSR's own monetary policy itself.

If by, "dealing with," you mean angering, botching, insulting, propping up only to pull down, invading, overthrowing, and alienating, then it's definitely the United States however the UK did, unwittingly, set the stage.

In a few cases, that's applicable, yes. Some countries do rely on the United States for defense but they do that only because the United States does it for them. Canada, the UK, Mexico, and Japan are examples of this though this is a fading Cold War paradigm. Otherwise, no, not really.

 

[D_Cyprius Slapwilly]

I'm sure he has plenty of knowledge on Iraq. McCain makes gaffes. Obama makes gaffes. Clinton makes gaffes. Politicians and all PEOPLE make gaffes. I'm not worried that McCain doesn't know enough about Iraq, I'm worried that his positions are simply wrong about Iraq.

If the candidates spend all of their time attacking each other's gaffes (which they will), this campaign will get tiring and petty very fast (which it already has). I'll pretty much ignore as much as possible until the first debate between the two.

 

[D_Kaye Throttlebottom]

I'm sure he has plenty of knowledge on Iraq. McCain makes gaffes. Obama makes gaffes. Clinton makes gaffes. Politicians and all PEOPLE make gaffes. I'm not worried that McCain doesn't know enough about Iraq, I'm worried that his positions are simply wrong about Iraq.

If the candidates spend all of their time attacking each other's gaffes (which they will), this campaign will get tiring and petty very fast (which it already has). I'll pretty much ignore as much as possible until the first debate between the two.

Sorry, chizz, then he and his team continued to INSIST that we had drawn down to pre-surge levels. So if it's just a gaffe then you admit it and move on. McCain continued to insist that we had drawn down to pre-surge levels when he was challenged on it. That is what is bothersome about it.

I am worried that McCain is resting on his laurels as an expert on National security. He's a POW from another war from another era, it's not an umbrella that makes his expertise static.

I question it b/c General Petreas was just on the hill last month and drawing a lot of criticism, b/c the original plan was to drawn down starting in July. Genereal Petreas said he wanted 3 months to evaluate what a drawn down to pre-surge levels would do to the region. That as just last month, Clinton, Obama and McCain (?) had a chance to talk to Petreas about it last month (anyone on the armed services committee).

So for McCain to say we had drawn down - was a little more than a gaffe. Either he didn't know. Or he was being manipulative and he started that statement with "I can look you in the eye and tell you ... we've drawn down to pre-surge levels." Compare McCain's statement with Gen Petreas last month telling congress we need to wait 3 more months and McCain talking to Petreas - you have to wonder if it was a mis-statement. Or was he doing it to manipulate voters. McCain already suggested that bogus Federal gas tax idea - to manipulate voters - it would not have helped the economy at all.

I'm sorry, I've just grown up too much to know that being a war veteran in one era doesn't make you an expert on another theatre. Rumsfeld had a lot of experience and his Defense decisions and policy were an abysmal failure w/ his "shock and awe" shit. I don't think McCain has made the best policy decisions for the amount of experience he has. I expect more from him b/c of it, not just to rest on it.

 

[D_Cyprius Slapwilly]

Oh I'm totally with you on that, Zoe. His military background doesn't mean squat in relation to his judgment or knowledge on foreign policy. It makes him brave an admirable as a soldier, but that's about as far as that goes. McCain fails on foreign policy on almost every level, but I still don't think I'd argue that he doesn't have enough knowledge on Iraq. He's simply wrong about Iraq.

 

[faceking]

I suspect the greatest countries are those that go about quietly living their lives minding their own business. Plenty of countries have higher standards of living than we do and most of them are prosperous and thrifty. Many of them have managed to be so longer than we have been around.

Part in parcel, because many of those countries have the benefit of protectionism from other countries that "don't mind their own business". Poland, Czechoslovakia, France, Holland we're quietly minding their own business circa 1938.

 

[faceking]

Oh I'm totally with you on that, Zoe. His military background doesn't mean squat in relation to his judgment or knowledge on foreign policy. It makes him brave an admirable as a soldier, but that's about as far as that goes. McCain fails on foreign policy on almost every level, but I still don't think I'd argue that he doesn't have enough knowledge on Iraq. He's simply wrong about Iraq.

You may want to let DC DEEP (and a few other LPSGers) know about that. As he's the seminal "I served, you didn't, I know better, STFU".


Ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, last I checked, John McCain has some experience as the ranking Repub on the Senate Armed Services Committee

"McCain fails on foreign policy on almost every level"

Wow, that seems a bit opinionated. Even I wouldn't say Nancy Pelosi fails at almost every level... and she's the worst.

 

[Deno]

its totally amazing how people take a few words and run with them. Are you perfect, do you make mistakes , yes you do and don't expect them to perfect. He was only repeating what some other stupid fuck told him to say. Can we say speech writer. I doubt even the president of the US presently know how many troops were there then and are there now. I am not even republican but I am getting sick and tired of all the shit thats said during this campaign. If John McCain has any faults it would be his age, damn he looks like he's allready done died.

 

[D_Cyprius Slapwilly]

You may want to let DC DEEP (and a few other LPSGers) know about that. As he's the seminal "I served, you didn't, I know better, STFU".

I don't bother debating people who carry around that level of arrogance.

Ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, last I checked, John McCain has some experience as the ranking Repub on the Senate Armed Services Committee

That experience IS relevant, but that's not the experience we're talking about. I was only talking about his military service. That's why I don't doubt that he knows plenty about Iraq.

"McCain fails on foreign policy on almost every level"

Wow, that seems a bit opinionated. Even I wouldn't say Nancy Pelosi fails at almost every level... and she's the worst.

Mission accomplished - it was meant to be opinionated. :wink:

To be fair, I think most politicians on both sides of the aisle fail on most levels. I don't even agree on many of Obama's foreign policy positions. However, I've accepted that my own positions aren't exactly in tune with the mainstream, and lobbying groups like AIPAC are simply too powerful to overcome. I have to compromise a bit.

 

[faceking]

I don't bother debating people who carry around that level of arrogance.


That experience IS relevant, but that's not the experience we're talking about. I was only talking about his military service. That's why I don't doubt that he knows plenty about Iraq.


Mission accomplished - it was meant to be opinionated. :wink:

To be fair, I think most politicians on both sides of the aisle fail on most levels. I don't even agree on many of Obama's foreign policy positions. However, I've accepted that my own positions aren't exactly in tune with the mainstream, and lobbying groups like AIPAC are simply too powerful to overcome. I have to compromise a bit.

Civil retort ...kudos. We don't get enough of that here. But you did question his "knowledge on foreign policy". If anything, he's seen it firsthand (I don't mean be serving, nor with a family history of it), but thru policy making. More than can be said for the other two. Seriously.

 

[faceking]

Keep in mind... it was McCain who was one of the strongest proponents of a "surge", long before Bush... a surge that has proven successful. If anything, McCain can deal a way out of this best, not by pulling the plug. This isn't the Fall of Saigon, folks.

So if Barry is true to his ethics... are we going to pull all troops out of Germany (a la World War II) and South Korea (a la Korean conflict), much less Guantanamo. What a travesty butcher with zero sense of safety, he'll become.. in the name of both "a good global name for America" and "sizing back the US military". Mark my words.

We just need to taaaaaaaalk to Iran. Like Jimmy Carter taaaaaaaaaalks to Hamas. Idjit galoots.

 

[uncut1234]

does clinton or obama?

 

[D_Cyprius Slapwilly]

Civil retort ...kudos. We don't get enough of that here. But you did question his "knowledge on foreign policy". If anything, he's seen it firsthand (I don't mean be serving, nor with a family history of it), but thru policy making. More than can be said for the other two. Seriously.

I get turned off when people can't have an honest debate without resorting to name calling ad hominem attacks. So I try to keep it nice and honest.

Again, I don't think I was questioning his knowledge, but rather his judgment. For example, Alan Dershowitz and Noam Chomsky are two very knowledgeable intellectuals on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. They have both vigorously studied the same information for many years, but they both arrive at two very different positions. That's what I meant when I said that McCain fails at foreign policy - it was simply me injecting my dissenting opinion on the candidate.

As far as his experience in the Senate, I don't question or refute that. I was simply referring the the idea that military service = political experience, because it doesn't.