McCain Won't Rule Out Pre-Emptive War

[240 is Back]

WESTPORT, Conn. (AP) - Republican Sen. John McCain refused Wednesday to rule out a pre-emptive war against another country, although he said one would be very unlikely.

The likely Republican presidential nominee was asked Wednesday at a town-hall style meeting if he would reject "the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive war," a reference to Bush's decision to invade Iraq without it having attacked the United States.

"I don't think you could make a blanket statement about pre-emptive war, because obviously, it depends on the threat that the United States of America faces," McCain told his audience at Bridgewater Associates Inc., a global investment firm.

"If someone is about to launch a weapon that would devastate America, or have the capability to do so, obviously, you would have to act immediately in defense of this nation's national security interests."

McCain said he would consult more closely and more carefully "not with every member of Congress, but certainly the leaders of Congress."

The Iraq war was in the spotlight this week as Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander there, gave Congress a status report on the war. McCain argues for keeping troops in Iraq to capitalize on security gains, despite a recent outbreak of violence. His Democratic rivals, Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton argue for withdrawing troops.

[CARTEL]

Is there a problem with that?

I think any President should leave every option open.

[Bindare_Dundat]

McCain said he would consult more closely and more carefully "not with every member of Congress, but certainly the leaders of Congress."

Thats nice.

[shootfighter1]

In general, thats the only reasonable responce to give.

Clinton bombed iraq in this fashion.

An invasion with ground troops is completely different and should require the vote of the whole congress.
IMO ground troops should only be used if there is an imminennt and unmistakable direct threat to the US...ie. not what happened in Iraq!

[Decker]

McCain is a disaster waiting to happen.

He's a supply-side tax cut nut.

He's doesn't know the players in Iran's running of the Iraq insurgency...hahahaha.

He actually believes the Iraq invasion was Pre-emptive when under any even-handed analysis it was preventive.

The "maverick" and "straight-talker" has been one of the most compliant flip-flopping bullshitters to come down the pike.

I could never waste my vote on a guy like this.

[240 is Back]

al-sadr has lived in iran for the last year.

he only stops into iraq to give marching orders.

[w8tlftr]

McCain is a disaster waiting to happen.

He's a supply-side tax cut nut.

He's doesn't know the players in Iran's running of the Iraq insurgency...hahahaha.

He actually believes the Iraq invasion was Pre-emptive when under any even-handed analysis it was preventive.

The "maverick" and "straight-talker" has been one of the most compliant flip-flopping bullshitters to come down the pike.

I could never waste my vote on a guy like this.

IMO, he's still better than the alternatives.

What is Obama or Hillary going to do to help the shrinking middle class? I don't think tax hikes during a recession is the answer. I know you think giving up large chucks of our paychecks to the government is a privilege but my wife and I would like to save for retirement and put our children through college. I don't want to have to depend on my government. Financial independence still means something to me.

And do we really need more layers of bureaucratic government?

[shootfighter1]

Absolutely.  That is the main problem I have with Hillary & Obama, their planned redistribution of wealth, which will heavily affect the upper MIDDLE class.

[Mars]

"If someone is about to launch a weapon that would devastate America Israel, or have the capability to do so, obviously, you would have to act immediately in defense of this nation's Israel's national security interests."

[Bindare_Dundat]

Absolutely.  That is the main problem I have with Hillary & Obama, their planned redistribution of wealth, which will heavily affect the upper MIDDLE class.

Have you heard some of Michelle's comments lately?

[dario73]

"If someone is about to launch a weapon that would devastate America Israel, or have the capability to do so, obviously, you would have to act immediately in defense of this nation's Israel's national security interests."

What's wrong with that? Don't you know America only exists because God has allowed it and if he wills this nation to protect Israel then so be it.

Seems like you forget that the main reason this nation has prospered is because of the Jews. The CHOSEN PEOPLE.

Now, if you don't like that, I hear Germany is nice this time of the year.

[Mars]

oh yeah god

[OzmO]

What's wrong with that? Don't you know America only exists because God has allowed it and if he wills this nation to protect Israel then so be it.

Seems like you forget that the main reason this nation has prospered is because of the Jews. The CHOSEN PEOPLE.

Now, if you don't like that, I hear Germany is nice this time of the year.

wow. 

It's hard to tell if you are serious or just being facetious. 

[Mars]

wow. 

It's hard to tell if you are serious or just being facetious. 

haha exactly.

[War-Horse]

IMO, he's still better than the alternatives.

What is Obama or Hillary going to do to help the shrinking middle class? I don't think tax hikes during a recession is the answer. I know you think giving up large chucks of our paychecks to the government is a privilege but my wife and I would like to save for retirement and put our children through college. I don't want to have to depend on my government. Financial independence still means something to me.

And do we really need more layers of bureaucratic government?

Dude you are fvcking dense arent you?     WTH to you think is happening the past few years???

How many times do you have to hear its not tax hikes, its using the money already going to waste on the war , dumbass......for gawds sake, you guys are a waste of space.

[Decker]

IMO, he's still better than the alternatives.

What is Obama or Hillary going to do to help the shrinking middle class? I don't think tax hikes during a recession is the answer. I know you think giving up large chucks of our paychecks to the government is a privilege but my wife and I would like to save for retirement and put our children through college. I don't want to have to depend on my government. Financial independence still means something to me.

And do we really need more layers of bureaucratic government?

I think a targeted tax hike with targeted tax relief is exactly what we need now.  The Clinton tax hike/cut ushered in an era with the elimination of the deficit and reduction of the national debt.

I'm all for those things.

McCain is already pledging to raise no tax.  To me, that's just irresponsibly passing the buck with interest.

You do depend on your government already.  For roads, telecommunications-phones-internet, libraries, FDIC insurance, new R&D, FDA, forrestry, etc.

There's nothing wrong with more bureaucracy if it is effective.  It's the ineffective, wasteful crap that's got to go.

[w8tlftr]

Dude you are fvcking dense arent you?     WTH to you think is happening the past few years???

How many times do you have to hear its not tax hikes, its using the money already going to waste on the war , dumbass......for gawds sake, you guys are a waste of space.

All Americans (regardless of income) are in for a major tax hike if the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire. What do you think that will do our our already weakening economy?

On top of all that both Republicans and Democrats are drunk on spending money and promising more entitlement programs. It's just not the billions spent on the war that's bankrupting us. Taxes on everything will have to go up to pay for all this shit.

[w8tlftr]

I think a targeted tax hike with targeted tax relief is exactly what we need now.  The Clinton tax hike/cut ushered in an era with the elimination of the deficit and reduction of the national debt.

I'm all for those things.

McCain is already pledging to raise no tax.  To me, that's just irresponsibly passing the buck with interest.

You do depend on your government already.  For roads, telecommunications-phones-internet, libraries, FDIC insurance, new R&D, FDA, forrestry, etc.

There's nothing wrong with more bureaucracy if it is effective.  It's the ineffective, wasteful crap that's got to go.

Decker, I'm not talking about maintaining our country's infrastructure. That's just common sense. I'm talking about social programs that people get hooked on with little to no incentive to ever get off of and I'm talking about billions wasted on BS subsidies and the billions we give away in foreign aid (when that money could be better used here) just so we can borrow billions more from China.

McCain wants to make the Bush tax cuts permanent and eliminate the AMT - that works for me. I have to do whats right by me and my family.

As far as more bureaucracy goes... you've never worked in the government have you? There is a reason it moves so damn slow. More layers of it is never a good thing.

[Decker]

Decker, I'm not talking about maintaining our country's infrastructure. That's just common sense. I'm talking about social programs that people get hooked on with little to no incentive to ever get off of and I'm talking about billions wasted on BS subsidies and the billions we give away in foreign aid (when that money could be better used here) just so we can borrow billions more from China.

McCain wants to make the Bush tax cuts permanent and eliminate the AMT - that works for me. I have to do whats right by me and my family.

As far as more bureaucracy goes... you've never worked in the government have you? There is a reason it moves so damn slow. More layers of it is never a good thing.

Your criticism is really valid and I do agree with it to an extent.  Voting out of self-interest is rational.

Making the Bush tax cuts permanent will only quicken the US's decline into bankruptcy.

We can cut spending at some time but we must pay our bills as a country.  Otherwise the debt will include the cost of interest and be that much more expensive down the road.

Social Security's bureaucracy is as efficient as any privatized insurance company and 10-19 times cheaper the cost.

[w8tlftr]

Your criticism is really valid and I do agree with it to an extent.  Voting out of self-interest is rational.

Making the Bush tax cuts permanent will only quicken the US's decline into bankruptcy.

We can cut spending at some time but we must pay our bills as a country.  Otherwise the debt will include the cost of interest and be that much more expensive down the road.

Social Security's bureaucracy is as efficient as any privatized insurance company and 10-19 times cheaper the cost.

I disagree, Decker. I think eliminating the tax cuts puts less money in the wallets of Americans and hurts our already hurting economy. I also think that Congress and the White House need to take a long hard look at what they spend American's tax dollars on. I know no one here (in their right mind) would run their home budgets like the government run theirs.

You previously said that you support a targeted tax hike and targeted tax relief. What do you think the targeted incomes should be (taking into consideration regional cost of living expenses)?

[Decker]

I disagree, Decker. I think eliminating the tax cuts puts less money in the wallets of Americans and hurts our already hurting economy. I also think that Congress and the White House need to take a long hard look at what they spend American's tax dollars on. I know no one here (in their right mind) would run their home budgets like the government run theirs.

You previously said that you support a targeted tax hike and targeted tax relief. What do you think the targeted incomes should be (taking into consideration regional cost of living expenses)?

Target a tax hike at those earning in excess of $300,000 a year and a tax cut at those in the middle range of the tax rate schedule (middle class tax relief).

An even better alternative would be a modest 'wealth tax' which targets the ultra-rich who earn the bulk of their dollars from passive investments instead of earned income.  Ed Wolff wrote a good book about this modest wealth tax.

We have bills to pay and borrowing just digs our grave a little deeper.

[w8tlftr]

Target a tax hike at those earning in excess of $300,000 a year and a tax cut at those in the middle range of the tax rate schedule (middle class tax relief).

Don't you think that's low for residents of states like Virginia, Maryland, and most of the New England states? It's not uncommon for couples that work in the IT sector to pull that much annually and they're not rich because of the high cost of living in those areas.

An even better alternative would be a modest 'wealth tax' which targets the ultra-rich who earn the bulk of their dollars from passive investments instead of earned income.  Ed Wolff wrote a good book about this modest wealth tax.

Any details on the 'wealth tax'? Do you think it would negatively impact small business owners?

We have bills to pay and borrowing just digs our grave a little deeper.

I agree 110 percent.

No one of sound mind borrows money when they're over their head in debt. Why do we allow our government to do it? 

[Decker]

Don't you think that's low for residents of states like Virginia, Maryland, and most of the New England states? It's not uncommon for couples that work in the IT sector to pull that much annually and they're not rich because of the high cost of living in those areas.

That could be indexed to a million instead of $300,000.  I just grabbed the 2003 top marginal rate/income from memory.

Any details on the 'wealth tax'? Do you think it would negatively impact small business owners?

"According to the calculations of Edward Wolff, an economist who studies the U.S. distribution of wealth, Sweden's wealth tax, levied here, would raise about 10 times as much revenue as the current U.S. estate tax." http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2005/0905miller.html

http://multinationalmonitor.org/mm2003/03may/may03corp1.html

No one of sound mind borrows money when they're over their head in debt. Why do we allow our government to do it? 

You're aboslutely right.  The problem, as always, lays at the feet of the People.  We have to vote into office true fiscal conservatives.  We can't have unlimited borrow and spending or perpetual tax hikes either.

Unfortunately we are a consumer driven society based on acquisitive success, instant gratification, and the utter avoidance of responsible sacrifice.  Sharing the benefit generally involves sharing the burden in some way.  That just hasn't happened in while.

[w8tlftr]

That could be indexed to a million instead of $300,000.  I just grabbed the 2003 top marginal rate/income from memory.

A million would be reasonable but, I have to admit, I still think it's a penalty for success.   

"According to the calculations of Edward Wolff, an economist who studies the U.S. distribution of wealth, Sweden's wealth tax, levied here, would raise about 10 times as much revenue as the current U.S. estate tax." http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2005/0905miller.html

http://multinationalmonitor.org/mm2003/03may/may03corp1.html

Thanks, Decker. I'll check it out.

Unfortunately we are a consumer driven society based on acquisitive success, instant gratification, and the utter avoidance of responsible sacrifice.  Sharing the benefit generally involves sharing the burden in some way.  That just hasn't happened in while.

Please explain what you mean by "sharing the benefit." To me, sharing the benefit means giving everyone the same opportunity and chances to succeed via a fair and equal playing field. A hand up vs. a hand out.

You are right on the mark about our society though. People live beyond their means and want everything now vs. working for it and earning it. It's no longer keeping up with the Jones - it's keeping up with the Jetsons. And people wonder why they feel spiritually empty. 

[shootfighter1]

Good debate.

 I think the real long term key is to change how our government spends $.  Yes, we can slightly raise taxes on the ultra-wealthy...but a greater effect is had by fiscal responsibility.  Do we have any fiscally responsible candidates right now?.....not really.  Thats why I voted for Ron Paul, because the basic message was sound.
Both of the democrats are going to hurt the middle and upper middle class to feed inefficient entitlement programs.  If Obama raises taxes on everyone making more than $75,000, that affects an incredible # of people that should not be penalyzed.