Obama, McCain lay out Iraq, Afghanistan strategies
The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.
JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION
-
U.N. Security Council blames Syrian gov't for Houla killings
( 3 )
-
U.S. drones kill 5 militants in Pakistan
( 4 )
-
NATO has fight on its hands in Afghanistan - Panetta
( 1 )
-
Iran may rethink 20% enrichment: spokesman
( 0 )
-
Egypt's uprising activists weigh Brotherhood vote
( 0 )
-
- English Instructor (Osaka, Kyoto, Kobe)
- Berlitz Japan, Inc. (ベルリッツ・ジャパン株式会社), Kansai
- Salary: ¥125,000 ~ ¥250,000 / Month
-
- ALT - Mie Prefecture - Yokkaichi City - June start
- NPO法人グローバル教育推進機構（GLAD), Mie
- Salary: ¥230,000 / Month For a full working month. Some months differ.
-
- Business Teaching Positions - Part-time - Kanto Region
- Interac, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥3,000 ~ ¥5,000 / Hour
Order by Time Order by Popularity
28 Comments
Login to comment
0
rjd_jr
Knows how to win wars huh? I sure believe him on that.
0
tkoind2
McCain is just GWB the return. Another 4 years of head in the sand domestic policy and bumbling foreign policy. Heck why not get another war going to keep the fear factor up and keep the minds of all those unemployed people on something else. In fact why not offer them jobs in Iran fighting terror? That will keep their minds of their lost homes, crashing banking system, frighteningly high fuel costs and the fact that they will be lucky to afford to send their kids to the lowest level college in the nation. And they will be grateful for that luxury.
Obama is looking at the domestic issue and I think is smart enough not to go to war with Iran. Equally I think he will shift policy to focus on the Afghan issues while kicking the Iraqi government's behind to get them to take on a lot more responsiblity for their situation at home.
So your choice Darth McCain and more years under the yoke of the Bush Empire, or a take a risk on someone offering to at least give change a chance. I'll cast my lot with someone looking for a different path.
0
SushiSake3
"Obama, McCain lay out Iraq, Afghanistan strategies"
That headline is very misleading - it makes it appear that McCain has a strategy.
0
Hughgarse
Pretty on the nose on that one..
0
reddragonguy
Obama has no military experiences,just like Bill Clinton! It was wrong from the begining electing Bushie for two terms? Where is John Kerry?
0
SushiSake3
Here's an idea for the candidates - I propose an Iraq War Spending Holiday- like McCain's 'Gas tax holiday'.
With my Iraq War Spending Holiday, 6 month's Iraq war spending, that's a good $90-120 billion, will be spent on Americans in America - building and refurbishing schools, economic bailouts, strengthening bridges and rebuilding roads in, getting more police on the streets, you name it.
Stop the out of control spending on Iraq and start spending on Americans.
Would any Americans object to this plan?
0
tkoind2
Only the ones in power.
0
SushiSake3
OMG, Sen McCain needs more than just a strategy for Iraq - he also desperately needs a strategy that tells him what countries are called.
For the second time in two days, John McCain has referred to current events in “Czechoslovakia” – a country that officially ceased to exist in January of 1993.
Hope he doesn't think Iran and Iraq are the same country :-)
0
adaydream
I'd much rather follow Obama's policy out of war than follow John McCain's p;olicy of staying in war. < :-)
0
reddragonguy
McCain: “Karzai has not been the strong leader we had hoped he would be
Of course he was a puppet just like Maliki and he was not big differences with those south vietnamese leaders in saigon 40 years ago!
America better sending more troops to there and saving those puppet regiemes in Kabul or Baghdad otherwise a defeat is coming! Bushie was a real good president, he made the decisions that was so complicating to solve and extended to next and maybe next presidency!
0
yosun
strategies don't mean successful plans. I have my Iraq/Afghanistan strategy, you probably have your one either, the Taxi driver u met this morning also got another good one....... so what ?
0
SuperLib
Because your plan includes the chance of a civil war in Iraq that would make the invasion look like a picnic. I understand that you're comfortable with that, but I think a lot of people aren't, even those who didn't support the invasion in the first place.
0
skipthesong
Superlib: How can we be so sure that a civil war will erupt if we pulled out?
0
SushiSake3
Superlib, you appear to be supporting continued spending on Iraq instead of diverting American money to Americans.
If I am misreading you, please say so.
0
SuperLib
Skip.....we can't be sure of that. And as the violence falls I think it helps support a point of view that a civil war will be less likely, which is a good thing. That also helps to bring the troops home sooner. But I still think Iraq needs more time.
Sushi... You aren't misreading anything, I don't think. You're just ignoring a possible civil war is all. Without taking that information into account your question is reduced to propaganda. But you already know this.
0
Madverts
"And as the violence falls I think it helps support a point of view that a civil war will be less likely, which is a good thing."
I'm sorry to say it, but you've more than had your chance at fixing what you broke, despite the many and sometimes comical attempts at laying the blame for the misery caused by the invasion elsewhere. Violence before the surge was at astronomical levels - the surge has soothed the 100 deaths a day syndrome without doubt, but people are still dying every single day with no hope of ever squashing this, like any other guerilla insurgency.
Asking for more time and pinning the blame for everything on the mythical "al-Qaida in Iraq" has been done. Things aren't getting better and to me at least, the mypoic dream of an Iraqi democracy with ball games, BBQ's and Budweiser seems as demented as ever. The US presence in Iraq is the problem.
Unless huge gains are made before Senator Obama takes office, and I mean weeks or even months between mutliple suicide bombings instead of days or even hours, then a draw-down and bail-out seems like the only logical solution from this disaster.
0
SuperLib
Whatever you say, Adverts...
0
Madverts
"Whatever you say, Adverts..."
What a fine philosophy you have there :)
(With apologies to the Toe-cutter, Mad Max)
0
Betzee
If we weren't spending USD 3 billion a week in Iraq, we would be borrowing less and this administration would not have run up a USD 5 trillion debt to be paid off by future taxpayers. They are the ones upon whom the burden will fall; they will not have the option of spending on America, no matter how great the need, since they will have to pay off the debt accumulated under the present leadership. Some people are comfortable with that, others see it as a gross example of taxation without representation since they had no say in the policies this administration pursued.
0
Madverts
Really Betzee?
I was told it was all the fault of the democrat controlled congress, right down to the loss of my car keys.
0
Betzee
McCain cannot have it both ways. If you want a strong leader, install a dictator. Any democratically elected leader of a tribalized society is necessarily going to be weak given that governance is perceived as a zero-sum game by the constituents those officials were elected to represent.
Adverts,
The one I enjoyed was blaming Bill Clinton for not approving drilling in ANWR. Then how could GWB have campaigned he could "jawbone" OPEC to lower prices?
0
Madverts
Well, Bill Clinton did give birth to Ousama bin Laden and of course, flew one of the planes into the twin towers (with Saddam Hussein obviously flying the other), so incubator babies aside, if Bill Clinton hadn't signed the regime change in Iraq bill, Bush Co wouldn't have been forced into invading and we wouldn't be in this quagmire.
0
Sarge
How many troops is Obama going to commit to the invasion of Pakistan?
0
Madverts
Note to Sarge:
Only pick on third world countries.
Heh, and even then some....
0
adaydream
Betzee - If we weren't spending USD 3 billion a week in Iraq, we would be borrowing less and this administration would not have run up a USD 5 trillion debt to be paid off by future taxpayers
$4Trillion of this went directly to the richest 1% of the population. It wasn't even wasted on the war. And we still have to pay it back. Thanx george for the screwjob.
But the republicans would have you believe that it's the democrats who caused this deficit. < :-)
0
SuperLib
You mean follow Europe's model? ;)
0
Madverts
You've already tried it more than once.
0
Sarge
We don't pick on third world countries, we help them.
Back to top