McCain refuses to rule out pre-emptive attacks

Thursday 10th April, 06:12 AM JST

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

› Login to comment

Latest 15 of 50 Total Comments Show All

SushiSake3 at 11:02 PM JST - 10th April

RomeoRamen, you claim Obama hasn't made certain things clear.

How about you making something clear to us - and answering a question I have repeatedly asked you but you have repeatedly dodged - where is the money going to come from to fund the war?

Sen. McCain doesn't know either, and he talks about pre-emptive attacks, which will only make everything worse.
RomeoRamenII at 11:22 PM JST - 10th April

"where is the money going to come from to fund the war?"

Sake 2/3: From taxpayers like you and me.

RR
SuperLib at 12:23 AM JST - 11th April

our exclusive sphere of influence

Sure, but first you have to guarantee that the things that happen in their sphere of influence will never cross over into ours. Which you can't.

I thought that line of thinking went out with Pearl Harbor?
SuperLib at 12:27 AM JST - 11th April

Does anyone here thing pre-emptive strikes should be ruled out completely?
SezWho2 at 07:00 AM JST - 11th April

first you have to guarantee

...dangling conversations...thought fragments...can't cope...

To predicate non-intervention on assurances that events in one sphere of influence will never cross over into our sphere of influence is to give ourselves carte blanche to stick our oar in at any time and at any place. It should be obvious that those assurances cannot be given and to raise an impossibility as an impediment to a practicality is a rhetorical sleight of hand.

The practical tests are those of necessity and reality. There simply was no necessity for us to intervene in Iraq in the first place. Even more telling than this, it is unrealistic to pretend that we can ever prevent Iranian influence with respect to Iraq. As its neighbor, Iran will always have influence on Iraq if not in it.
Sarge at 07:40 AM JST - 11th April

RR / Sushi2/3

RR - Barack has pledged to withdraw the troops. But he says he'll redeploy them if al Qaida is found to be establishing a base in Iraq. Senator McCain has already informed him that al Qaida is in Iraq now. They're called "al-Qaida in Iraq." Barack lamely retorted that "al Qaida wasn't in Iraq until George Bush decided to invade."

Sushi2/3 ( 06:07 ) - "Sarge, I have another strategy for you, one that might actually work, and that you have already been using for years"

Why would you advise me to use a strategy that you think I've already been using?
SuperLib at 09:55 AM JST - 11th April

To predicate non-intervention on assurances that events in one sphere of influence will never cross over into our sphere of influence is to give ourselves carte blanche to stick our oar in at any time and at any place.

That's not what I said. I don't think other countries should have the right to meddle when they want and for whatever reason. But you said the US shouldn't be involved because Iraq isn't in our sphere of influence and left it at that. You made a blanket statement and I challenged it, and in response you turned my challenge into a straw man.

The practical tests are those of necessity and reality.

That's a better statement and one that I'm able to agree with. Just curious tho....how does humanitarian assistance figure in to the situation? What about stopping genocide?
RomeoRamenII at 10:14 AM JST - 11th April

Sarge - barack lies about everything: About energy. About healthcare. About national defense. And especially about himself.

so-called unifiers don't lie about America being less safe because of the Iraq War when there hasn't been an attack inside the U.S. since 9-11. The same cannot be said of many other nations that have tried to appease the Islamoterrorists.

America is safer now than on any day during the clinton regime because with Mr. Bush we have had a president who took action. The clinton years were all about inaction.

RR
mareo2 at 10:31 AM JST - 11th April

What about stopping genocide?

That is ease, the US just must to drop the "winning at any cost because my pride demand it" attitude. If these is about the US stoping the violence in Irak and not about the US controling Irak. Make anyone obey a cease-fire and sit the strongmen in Irak: Maliki, Sadr, Hashemi and Barzani to negotiate sharing the power in Irak. If one of the conditions for peace in Irak is get the US out of Irak, is the Irak decision. In my opnion is better for peace in Irak to become neutral in the US-Iran hate realtionship. Irakis are just threated like a pawns in a proxi war.
SezWho2 at 10:46 PM JST - 11th April

SuperLib,

That's not what I said.

I said that it is not our business to keep Iran out of Iraq. When you commented that it then followed that it was not the world's business to try to keep America out of Iraq, I said those were different things.

I said it was one thing to claim a sphere of influence locally and quite another to do so globally. You have made up the part about me saying that we should not be in Iraq because it is not our sphere of influence. I think you'll find the straw man was your creation.

I agree with you that countries do not have a right to meddle whenever and wherever they want. But my reason for saying that we should not be in the business of keeping Iran out of Iraq is not because Iraq is in Iran's "sphere of influence". That's just scary talk. My reasons are that (a) we still have no idea what we are dealing with in Iraq and (b) Iran has a much bigger stake in what happens in Iraq than we will ever have.
jeancolmar at 11:33 AM JST - 12th April

Basically McCain as president means four more years of Bush. I suspect that Bush will start a war with Iran around election time and the war hysteria will put McCain into the White House.
Farmboy at 05:14 PM JST - 13th April

If McCain wins, it will be because he's white and male. Most people I know, Democrat AND Republican, think he's a big disappointment. The "Straight talk express" got off the track a while back.
frontandcentre at 02:16 PM JST - 14th April

McCain must be trying to help the Democrats to win, making stupid statements like that. All U.S. Presidents reserve their rights to do anything they like, we know that, but to come out and say so when you are trying to look like anything but the current politically and morally bankrupt administration is pretty daft.

Way to go, McCain - poor fella's losing his marbles already, at least Ray-gun had the decency to get elected first!
Sarge at 02:41 PM JST - 14th April

Jean - But, but, if Bush starts a war with Iran, the "vast majority of Americans who oppose the Iraq war" ( and, of course, would oppose a war with Iran ) would put Obama or Clinton into the White House, no?

F&C - "McCain must be trying to help the Democrats to win"

Hey, they need all the help they can get! He's just trying to be fair!
Sarge at 02:45 PM JST - 14th April

Farmboy - "The Straight Talk Express got off the track a while back"

Har!