From an Angry Soldier

[240 is Back]

It's a good idea to get our men and women home as soon as possible without leaving a Iraq with the inability to defend itself and without permitting genocide.  We will probably always have a presence in Iraq, so if you vote for Obama you'll be voting for a man who will still send men and women to Iraq.  

It's not hard to pin down where I'm coming from.  I think McCain will be a better CIC than Obama.  I'd rather have someone with his experience leading us through two ongoing combat operations than someone who probably favors the Peace Corp of the U.S. military.

What you're trying to do is reconcile my views with your distorted (in my opinion) view of the war.  

you've never been in the military, right?

kinda hard for you to tell who would make the best military leader when you lacked the courage to serve

[Dos Equis]

you've never been in the military, right?

kinda hard for you to tell who would make the best military leader when you lacked the courage to serve

 

[240 is Back]

You're the one who was a dropout who had overcome so much.
Then you were a college professor and all your students thought 911 was silly.
Then you ran a company.

Now you're creating a military record?  Wow.  Ozmo and berserker must just shake their heads at you.  They do professional, objective moderating.  You, on the other hand, are a nonstop liar who fakes credentials, believes statistics is witchcraft, and now are telling us you served after saying it wasn't for you.

[Dos Equis]

You're the one who was a dropout who had overcome so much.
Then you were a college professor and all your students thought 911 was silly.
Then you ran a company.

Now you're creating a military record?  Wow.  Ozmo and berserker must just shake their heads at you.  They do professional, objective moderating.  You, on the other hand, are a nonstop liar who fakes credentials, believes statistics is witchcraft, and now are telling us you served after saying it wasn't for you.

[240 is Back]

note he is attacking the messenger, and not the message.

I point out his inconsistencies.

he doesn't deny them.

[Decker]

It's a good idea to get our men and women home as soon as possible without leaving a Iraq with the inability to defend itself and without permitting genocide.  We will probably always have a presence in Iraq, so if you vote for Obama you'll be voting for a man who will still send men and women to Iraq. 

Have you read Obama's position on Iraq--the phased withdrawal?

How do you know there will be a genocide with a phased withdrawal?  You pro-war people have been wrong about the effects of every major point in this Iraq debacle.

OBAMA: Bringing Our Troops Home
Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.  http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/

MCCAIN: Bolster Troops on the Ground
A greater military commitment now is necessary if we are to achieve long-term success in Iraq.
http://www.exploremccain.com/Informing/Issues/fdeb03a7-30b0-4ece-8e34-4c7ea83f11d8.htm

And you want the troops home, when?

It's not hard to pin down where I'm coming from.  I think McCain will be a better CIC than Obama.  I'd rather have someone with his experience leading us through two ongoing combat operations than someone who probably favors the Peace Corp of the U.S. military.

So you set up a straw argument about Obama's abilities just to insulate yourself from making real choices based on the candidate's platforms. 

You'll have to forgive me Beach Bum but when I see someone do that and defer to 'experience' although McCain has the same amount of presidential experience that Obama (hell, even me or you) has, I see someone not fully answering a question.

Here are some things you can bank on with a McCain presidency:  More US families will be torn apart by the deaths of a mother/father/son/daughter and you will get your tax cut.  Which means more to you?

What you're trying to do is reconcile my views with your distorted (in my opinion) view of the war. 

I'm trying to find out why you are voting for McCain. 

When I delve into the human costs of the failed Iraq venture, you change the subject.

[Dos Equis]

note he is attacking the messenger, and not the message.

I point out his inconsistencies.

he doesn't deny them.

[Dos Equis]

Have you read Obama's position on Iraq--the phased withdrawal?

How do you know there will be a genocide with a phased withdrawal?  You pro-war people have been wrong about the effects of every major point in this Iraq debacle.

OBAMA: Bringing Our Troops Home
Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.  http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/

MCCAIN: Bolster Troops on the Ground
A greater military commitment now is necessary if we are to achieve long-term success in Iraq.
http://www.exploremccain.com/Informing/Issues/fdeb03a7-30b0-4ece-8e34-4c7ea83f11d8.htm

And you want the troops home, when?
So you set up a straw argument about Obama's abilities just to insulate yourself from making real choices based on the candidate's platforms. 

You'll have to forgive me Beach Bum but when I see someone do that and defer to 'experience' although McCain has the same amount of presidential experience that Obama (hell, even me or you) has, I see someone not fully answering a question.

Here are some things you can bank on with a McCain presidency:  More US families will be torn apart by the deaths of a mother/father/son/daughter and you will get your tax cut.  Which means more to you?
I'm trying to find out why you are voting for McCain. 

When I delve into the human costs of the failed Iraq venture, you change the subject.

I don't know if there will be genocide if there is a withdrawal in 16 months, but that is certainly a possibility. 

Obama's goal is nothing more than an irresponsible pipe dream.  We're not going anywhere.  There will eventually be a RIF, but we will have a presence there like we've had in Germany and Korea till kingdom come. 

Oh come on.  Obama and McCain will not have the same level of experience to be commander in chief.  Not even close. 

I already told you some of the reasons why I'm voting for McCain over Obama.  Not going to repeat it.  Use the scroll feature.   

[OzmO]

I don't know if there will be genocide if there is a withdrawal in 16 months, but that is certainly a possibility. 

Obama's goal is nothing more than an irresponsible pipe dream.  We're not going anywhere.  There will eventually be a RIF, but we will have a presence there like we've had in Germany and Korea till kingdom come. 

Oh come on.  Obama and McCain will not have the same level of experience to be commander in chief.  Not even close. 

I already told you some of the reasons why I'm voting for McCain over Obama.  Not going to repeat it.  Use the scroll feature.   

I don't think Military experience is the issue here.  It's domestic issues on most people's minds anyway.   Namely:  GAs, Homes, & Taxes

[Dos Equis]

I don't think Military experience is the issue here.  It's domestic issues on most people's minds anyway.   Namely:  GAs, Homes, & Taxes

Not the issue for who?  It's definitely an issue for me.  Our two conflicts are as important as the economy.  I think polls have recently shown the economy is the no. 1 issue, but the war is up there with most people too. 

[Decker]

I don't know if there will be genocide if there is a withdrawal in 16 months, but that is certainly a possibility. 

Obama's goal is nothing more than an irresponsible pipe dream.  We're not going anywhere.  There will eventually be a RIF, but we will have a presence there like we've had in Germany and Korea till kingdom come. 

Oh come on.  Obama and McCain will not have the same level of experience to be commander in chief.  Not even close. 

I already told you some of the reasons why I'm voting for McCain over Obama.  Not going to repeat it.  Use the scroll feature.   

So a phased withdrawal of troops is a pipe dream yet McCains escalation of the war is iron clad good policy....I don't agree with that.

What good is McCain's 5 years as a POW to executing the office of president.  Neither McCain nor Obama have been president so neither has experience in the matter.

No sir, I don't have to scroll any more. 
You've done more than enough to convince me that the lives of our troops are not that high on your values list for drawing up criteria that governs your vote for presidency. 

I believe you when you say experience and tax cuts matter to you.  I also believe that you do care about our soldiers.  The only problem I have sir is that you are making a choice that puts experience and tax cuts over the lives of our soldiers.

But that's just the way I see it.  Can you see why someone might think the way I do about your choice of presidential candidate?

[Dos Equis]

So a phased withdrawal of troops is a pipe dream yet McCains escalation of the war is iron clad good policy....I don't agree with that.

What good is McCain's 5 years as a POW to executing the office of president.  Neither McCain nor Obama have been president so neither has experience in the matter.

No sir, I don't have to scroll any more. 
You've done more than enough to convince me that the lives of our troops are not that high on your values list for drawing up criteria that governs your vote for presidency. 

I believe you when you say experience and tax cuts matter to you.  I also believe that you do care about our soldiers.  The only problem I have sir is that you are making a choice that puts experience and tax cuts over the lives of our soldiers.

But that's just the way I see it.  Can you see why someone might think the way I do about your choice of presidential candidate?

Yes, telling the American public he will withdraw 1 to 2 brigades a month is an irresponsible pipe dream. 

I don't know if McCain will "escalate" matters.  I believe he'll do whatever he believes is necessary to complete the mission in a responsible manner.  He may be an old fart, but I'll trust him over Obama any day of the week to lead the military. 

The fact McCain went to the Naval Academy, served as an Army officer, served in combat, was a true American hero during the war has quite a bit to do with him being commander in chief.  People who have served definitely have a different (and usually better) perspective of the military, how it works, how it should be run, etc.  You don't think that's important.  I do.

I didn't say the troops aren't high on my values list.  In fact, one of the reasons I'm going to vote for McCain over Obama is I think McCain will be a better leader for our troops.

What you're essentially saying is if I don't support an anti-war candidate like Obama, that I'm not supporting the troops and don't care about them.  How's that for putting words in someone's mouth?     You're wrong about my views, for the reasons I've already stated. 

I can see how someone can have false impressions like you do if they ignore what I've already said.  That's pretty easy to do. 

[OzmO]

Not the issue for who?  It's definitely an issue for me.  Our two conflicts are as important as the economy.  I think polls have recently shown the economy is the no. 1 issue, but the war is up there with most people too. 

No, i disagree, the CiC will do what's prudent given the situation, and with any luck the CiC will listen to ALL his advisors.  Looking at how BUSH handled everything after Afghanistan i'd give him him a "D", I don't see John McCain or Obama being that stupid.

[Dos Equis]

No, i disagree, the CiC will do what's prudent given the situation, and with any luck the CiC will listen to ALL his advisors.  Looking at how BUSH handled everything after Afghanistan i'd give him him a "D", I don't see John McCain or Obama being that stupid.

Actually, a potential CIC (Obama) has already said what he's going to do, likely without consulting with the Joint Chiefs and likely without consulting with the commanders in theater.  He's going to tell his advisors what he wants to do, if he plans to keep his campaign promises. 

[OzmO]

Actually, a potential CIC (Obama) has already said what he's going to do, likely without consulting with the Joint Chiefs and likely without consulting with the commanders in theater.  He's going to tell his advisors what he wants to do, if he plans to keep his campaign promises. 

Do you really think he was making a campaign speech or deciding policy?

I think it's obvious he wants the war to end and in his uninformed, unadvised, opinion he thinks that's a good plan  and he said what he said more for campaign reasons. 

[Dos Equis]

Do you really think he was making a campaign speech or deciding policy?

I think it's obvious he wants the war to end and in his uninformed, unadvised, opinion he thinks that's a good plan  and he said what he said more for campaign reasons. 

Both.  He has already made a policy decision to "end this war" and he made a military decision to withdraw 1 to 2 brigades a month, over a year before potentially taking the reigns.  He is basing a large part of his campaign on these policy decisions.  It's a done deal, if you believe him.  So the advisors will be following orders as far as the war is concerned. 

In reality, if he is elected I think he will quickly find out we won't be going anywhere.  At least not according to his timetable.   

[OzmO]

Both.  He has already made a policy decision to "end this war" and he made a military decision to withdraw 1 to 2 brigades a month, over a year before potentially taking the reigns.  He is basing a large part of his campaign on these policy decisions.  It's a done deal, if you believe him.  So the advisors will be following orders as far as the war is concerned. 

In reality, if he is elected I think he will quickly find out we won't be going anywhere.  At least not according to his timetable.   

So then it's just a campaign statement. 

[Dos Equis]

So then it's just a campaign statement. 

I'd call it a false promise. 

[OzmO]

I'd call it a false promise. 

Yeah, well, what candidate in the history of presidential elections doesn't have them?

[Dos Equis]

Yeah, well, what candidate in the history of presidential elections doesn't have them?

Sad but true.   

[Decker]

...I don't know if McCain will "escalate" matters.  I believe he'll do whatever he believes is necessary to complete the mission in a responsible manner.  He may be an old fart, but I'll trust him over Obama any day of the week to lead the military. 

You are not even familiar with John McCain's Iraq policy...in a word, escalation:

"Increasing U.S. troop levels will expose more brave Americans to danger and increase the number of American casualties."

"A greater military commitment now is necessary if we are to achieve long-term success in Iraq."

 http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/fdeb03a7-30b0-4ece-8e34-4c7ea83f11d8.htm
 

...
What you're essentially saying is if I don't support an anti-war candidate like Obama, that I'm not supporting the troops and don't care about them.  How's that for putting words in someone's mouth?     You're wrong about my views, for the reasons I've already stated. 

I can see how someone can have false impressions like you do if they ignore what I've already said.  That's pretty easy to do. 

You've said nothing to dispel the fact that your candidate, John McCain, is going to escalate the number of troops in Iraq which means more dead americans and more destroyed families for a mistake--no WMDs--and a failed policy.

[Dos Equis]

You are not even familiar with John McCain's Iraq policy...in a word, escalation:

"Increasing U.S. troop levels will expose more brave Americans to danger and increase the number of American casualties."

"A greater military commitment now is necessary if we are to achieve long-term success in Iraq."

 http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/fdeb03a7-30b0-4ece-8e34-4c7ea83f11d8.htm
 
You've said nothing to dispel the fact that your candidate, John McCain, is going to escalate the number of troops in Iraq which means more dead americans and more destroyed families for a mistake--no WMDs--and a failed policy.

That's not escalation.  That's stabilization.  He's saying increased presence will prevent insurgent strongholds.  That will reduce violence.  That will makes things safer for our troops.  I believe that’s what happened with the surge.  He was one of the few who supported the surge.  He turned out to be right.   

Also, he wants the Iraqis to eventually take primary responsibility for their safety, etc.:

Building a capable Iraqi army is a central requirement for ensuring Iraq's ability to govern and protect itself long after American forces have withdrawn. The U.S. must accelerate the training and equipping of Iraqi armed forces and police to enable them to play a key role in securing Iraq. Only in a secure environment will the development of Iraq's political and economic institutions have a chance to succeed. Ultimately, Iraq's future lies in the hands of its people, government, and armed forces, and strengthening them is an essential requirement for bringing U.S. troops home from Iraq. Until Iraqi forces are ready, however, a precipitous U.S. withdrawal would condemn Iraq to civil war and intervention by its neighbors and energize al Qaeda and other jihadists across the globe. This would gravely jeopardize American security.

http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/fdeb03a7-30b0-4ece-8e34-4c7ea83f11d8.htm

And here is the full quote you cherry picked from his statement about leadership:

John McCain on Leadership
"Increasing U.S. troop levels will expose more brave Americans to danger and increase the number of American casualties. When Congress authorized this war, we committed America to a mission that entails the greatest sacrifice a country can make, one that falls disproportionately on those Americans who love their country so much that they volunteer to risk their lives to accomplish that mission. And when we authorized this war, we accepted the responsibility to make sure those men and women could prevail. Extending combat tours and accelerating the deployment of additional troops is a terrible sacrifice to impose on the best patriots among us, and they will understandably be disappointed when they are given that order. Then they will shoulder their weapons and do everything they can to protect our country's vital interests in Iraq."

[Decker]

That's not escalation.  That's stabilization.  He's saying increased presence will prevent insurgent strongholds.  That will reduce violence.  That will makes things safer for our troops.  I believe that’s what happened with the surge.  He was one of the few he supported the surge.  He turned out to be right.   

Also, he wants the Iraqis to eventually take primary responsibility for their safety, etc.:

...

That's wonderful that you put the Iraqi people's interests ahead of the lives of american families.  That's laudable.

I'll tell you what, things would be made a whole lot safer for our troops if they weren't in Iraq.

The Surge was a dismal failure.

Troop surge a failure, Iraq war veteran says

Iraq Veterans Against the War says the troop surge is a failure

"It seems that in all measurable aspects, the troop surge has failed. Despite what general Petraeus said before Congress, numerous preliminary reports outline what is clearly a failure in this surge strategy. Casualties, both US and Iraqi have exceeded the numbers from last year for every month in 2007. The Iraqi government is no closer to stability than it was a year ago,..."  http://ivaw.org/node/1676

US surge has failed - Iraqi poll
About 70% of Iraqis believe security has deteriorated in the area covered by the US military "surge" of the past six months, an opinion poll suggests.  http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6983841.stm

The Coalition Casualties have been climbing by the month:  http://icasualties.org/oif/

Monthly death tolls in Iraq are on the rise again. For the first time since September 2007 the number of civilian deaths from violence were higher than in the preceding month, according to figures from the Iraq Body Count project (IBC).

Civilian causalties are up too:

Preliminary totals from IBC’s daily assessment of international and Iraqi media-reported violent incidents show 947 civilian deaths between 1st and 27th February. This is already 180 more than the equivalent January total of 767 civilian deaths, with two days of February still left (note that February is also a shorter month).
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/beyond/enforced-security/

McCain wants to send more US soldiers to their deaths in Iraq for what again?

[240 is Back]

decker,

that means the US population, and the iraqi population, are very unhappy with this war.

Who IS happy with this war?

[Decker]

decker,

that means the US population, and the iraqi population, are very unhappy with this war.

Who IS happy with this war?

Neocon strategists, pro-war supporters, interested corporations, OPEC, and you.