world

McCain says Iraq war can be won by 2013

97 Comments

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

© Copyright 2008/9 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2022 GPlusMedia Inc.

97 Comments
Login to comment

may be earlier than that... Provided Obama is commander-in-chief.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yep and g.w. said saddam had ties to al quaeda. dick cheney said we'd be met in Iraq as liberators and donnie somebody-write-me-a-reality-check said that there were WMDs all over the place near Tikrit, condi claimed there were bio labs and wolfie said the whole mess would pay for itself.

The lesson here is this: With regards to Iraq, republican politicians don't always lie. Sometimes they're quiet.

Taka

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yet more reason why this man is unfit to be commander in chief. Is he absolutely insane? Can be "won" by 2013, five more freaking years? Be jeezus, that's almost as long as the Vietnam war.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

That depends on the definition of "won". If he means major combat, that has been "won" years ago. If he means a democratic, unified, stable Iraq, he is delusional.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yep and g.w. said saddam had ties to al quaeda. dick cheney said we'd be met in Iraq as liberators and donnie somebody-write-me-a-reality-check said that there were WMDs all over the place near Tikrit, condi claimed there were bio labs and wolfie said the whole mess would pay for itself.

Well let's not forget those claiming it was all for cheap oil, revenge, worse than Vietnam, and Saddam "wasn't that bad of a guy." I think both sides are guilty of making some pretty irresponsible claims.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Superlib, If you were comparing the GOP politicians in charge of our nation with liberal bloggers, you may have a point. As is, not so much. For example, find me one Democratic politician who said Saddam "wasn't that bad." Just one will do.

Taka

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Dems voted for the invasion too. Anyway, I too believe he is out of his mind. Iraq shouldn't even been a unified country to begin with.

If he knew WWII was going to be won, why did he know we were going to win in Vietnam? And had he known that, would he still have went in?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

“I know from experience, you set a day for surrender—which is basically what you do when you say you are withdrawing—and you will pay a much a heavier price later on.”

This is something that seems to be lost on people that want the troops to pull out tomorrow. If the troops pull out too early, there is a good chance its going to be a lot worse than it is now.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I didn’t know when we were going to win World War II; I just knew we were going to win.

John McCain was 8 years old when the bombs fell on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Presumably he is bringing something more than childish optimism to the party today.

It may be that we can win the Iraq war by 2013. And it may be that the Iraqis can win their own way by 2011 if we pull out today. There are a lot of maybes and no plans. But plans would be the "how" of it.

If Iraq, Afghanistan, Osama bin Laden and terrorism were strictly military problems, McCain might be right to focus on the military endgame. But they are not. They are broad political problems.

According to at least one Middle East expert (Aaron David Miller) we have arrived at a point in the Middle East where America is "not liked, not respected and not feared". Continued application of military strength is as unlikely to solve that problem as continued application of steroids is likely to cure a bad case of dysentery.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

In his dreams

0 ( +0 / -0 )

McCain doesn't have much credibility given that he's been wrong at every turn, including a prediction in early 2003 it would be a quick fight. Though he may be right on this: modern-day regime change occupations in which military force is deployed to remake the social and political landscape tend to last about ten years. Think of the Soviets in Afghanistan and the Vietnamese in Cambodia, two occupations that spanned the 1980s. The cost, as well as international pressure, finally forced them to leave. Neither achieved its strategic objectives. For the United States, this has been a far bigger strategic blunder than Vietnam (which was more costly in lives).

0 ( +0 / -0 )

John McCain has no intention of stopping this war. He's saying the same thing that george bush says, stay the course. And now he's going to end the war by 2013. What happens if he doesn't, another term to finish it off, just like george bush.

Yep, the "george bush Memorial War in Iraq" was for oil.

Saddam refused to sell oil to the United States. He sold to everyone else damn near, but not the U. S. Then also, how about selling for euros instead od USD.

http://www.celsias.com/2008/04/10/peak-oil-petrodollars-and-climate-change-apathy

This is the very same reason that george bush wants to attack Iran. It 'sn't for WMD or nukes. It's over oil. They have already threatened to sell for euros.

John McCain will continue the rheteric that george bush has made and work his heart out to continue in earnest to start a war in Iran.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

medieval times - "This is something that seems to be lost on people that want the troops to pull out tomorrow. If the troops pull out too early, there is a good chance its going to be a lot worse than it is now."

This rationale always sounds reasonable if you look at the situation purely in the ME, but you need to compare it to very likely fallout of a global economic meltdown caused by a faultering U.S. economy bought about in no small part by the insane spending going on to fund the Iraq war.

American has lost and needs to get the heck out.

A staged withdrawl, wightdraw to the borders, whatever - just get out.

Staying - as has been clear for years - only makes things worse, and if McCain is thinking America is going to withdraw as 'heroes' or 'liberators', he's got some news coming and it's all bad.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I think McCain needs to look what his immigration intentions are going to do to the security of the US.

also, "also envisioned Osama bin Laden dead or captured, al-Qaida will have been defeated" What he is not getting is that Al-Q is becoming more and more of a religion of sorts, we are not going to be able to defeat that by winning in Iraq.. "and Iraq’s government will be functioning on its own." I could care less, what I care about is if the US government will be functioning.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

American has lost and needs to get the heck out.

While that may be true, there's no international pressure for the United States to get out (in contrast to the two cases I mentioned above). Not in European capitals or Muslim governments.

Neither Saudi Arabia nor Turkey, two U.S. allies that border Iraq which were not enthusiastic about regime change (albeit for different reasons), want the United States to withdrawal because it might result in chaos on their borders. To put it bluntly, their position is "you broke it you own it." About the only regional government which does favor a U.S. withdrawal is Iran, the biggest strategic beneficiary of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

For example, find me one Democratic politician who said Saddam "wasn't that bad." Just one will do.

Would you agree that that's a pretty absurd point of view? I'm just curious because it's been said on this message board thousands of times but you kept silent. Now, suddenly, you're telling us you've disagreed with those posters this entire time?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sushi, I think it's admirable that you put the American economy over the lives of Iraqis that could die if the US pulls out too soon. It's nice to know there are foreigners such as yourself looking out for my wallet, and you do it all for free...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SuperLib -

How many Democratic politicians post on JT, do you think?

Taka's question isn't absurd at all. Either answer it, or fess up that you made a bogus claim.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

For example, find me one Democratic politician who said Saddam "wasn't that bad." Just one will do.

Would you agree that that's a pretty absurd point of view? I'm just curious because it's been said on this message board thousands of times but you kept silent. Now, suddenly, you're telling us you've disagreed with those posters this entire time?"

You probably won't find a democrat who said that. But you will find a lot of dems praising a murdering bastard such as Che!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SuperLib - it's the global economy I'm concerned about, not just the U.S. economy.

"Sushi, I think it's admirable that you put the American economy over the lives of Iraqis that could die if the US pulls out too soon."

Do you thnk it is best to have Iraqis AND Americans die, or just Iraqis?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I'm just curious because it's been said on this message board thousands of times but you kept silent.

What's been pointed out on this board is that when Saddam committed his atrocities, the United States remained silent. As I recall, you never even looked into the reasons why that was so. It's never too late....

As for wildly off the mark predictions, those made by people who lacked power are inconsequential, be they posters here or bloggers. By contrast, those in power should be held accountable for their decisions.

Nonetheless, as the author of a new review article prohesizes: We are committed in Afghanistan. We are not ready to leave Iraq. In both countries our friends are in trouble. The pride of American arms is at stake. The world is watching. To me the logic of events seems inescapable. Unless something quite unexpected happens, four years from now the presidential candidates will be arguing about two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, one going into its ninth year, the other into its eleventh. The choice will be the one Americans hate most—get out or fight on.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21431

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sushi, I'm not going to get in your way. If you want to trade Iraqi lives for my pocketbook then go right ahead. That position, along with your support of Karl Rove and your tireless campaigning to get undecideds to vote for McCain makes me wonder if you're a closet Republican, tho.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sushisake 3 : "American has lost and needs to get the heck out."

Who won? The Iraqi people?

Or was it Al Qaeda?

Surely it can't be both.

Awaiting your always insightful dodge.

No,sorry - opinion. I meant opinion.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What's been pointed out on this board is that when Saddam committed his atrocities, the United States remained silent.

heh I don't think I've been silent about Saddam's atrocities. You, on the other hand, still refuse to speak about them even to this day, which means your policy re: Saddam and the US's policy re: Saddam in the 80s are pretty much the same, no? And you even fought against the US so you could keep Saddam in power!

Now, seeing as your someone who protects Saddam from criticism and sought to keep him on power, what's your question?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Taka's question isn't absurd at all. Either answer it, or fess up that you made a bogus claim.

Sorry, you're confused. I'm not limited to taking positions that only come out of the mouths of politicians. Taka is trying to force that requirement on me as a way to say that I can't use any of his own arguments. Certainly I can form an opinion about a position whether it's from a Democrat, Republican, or my garbage man.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

superlib - an excellent point:

Sushi, I'm not going to get in your way. If you want to trade Iraqi lives for my pocketbook then go right ahead. That position, along with your support of Karl Rove and your tireless campaigning to get undecideds to vote for McCain makes me wonder if you're a closet Republican, tho.

I often wonder the same.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SuperLib -

I'll take that as a fess.

:-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

One thing some forget if we pull out of Iraq soon, it sure as heck won't be bad for American troops who won't be put in harm's way anymore, doing endless patrols and raids and getting killed and maimed day in, day out, for no purpose whatsoever. If sparing American lives is considered making things worse in Iraq, I'll take that.

People can analyze all they want this mess, but really it's not that hard of a concept. The reason why the government of Iraq is a joke, and things as bad as they ever were, is simply because the Iraqi government and military know that as long as the A-meri-key troops are in Iraq, they can take it easy. After 5 plus years, these people still have no sense of urgency. It's like that son who never leaves the house and finds a job after college, because he knows he can rely on his parents.

If the troops leave, then maybe these people will see the light and the gravity of the situation, and get with the program already. The longer American forces stay there, the Iraqi government and military will continue to have this mindset that they have a crutch.

Cut the strings, and let them fight for their own country as it should be.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

heh I don't think I've been silent about Saddam's atrocities.

True, everytime there's a thread detailing the problems in Iraq you change the subject to Saddam. As I recall, you were unclear on the number of his victims, parroting the claim that "Saddam had killed millions." In fact, he is credited with killing 300,000. Not something I'd want on my conscience, but not enough to put him in the ranks of the worst either.

After his regime was toppled, all the societal tensions which his iron-clad rule had suppressed bubbled over (much to the surprise of the neocons). In the West, democracy involves a relationship between the individual and the state. In tribalized countries, it's about the relationship of the group to the state. Predictably, the ensuing jockeying for power quickly descended into violence.

If this were the 19th century, the US could rule Iraq indefinitely, as the British thought they would do in India. When the colonial era abruptly ended, the institutions and values of democracy had nonetheless been established in Britain's crown jewel and a leader emerged with a deep commitment to liberty and popular sovereignty. (Al-Sadr can hardly be compared to Nehru).

But in the first decade of the 21st century this sort of imperial tutelage is impossble of course. Hence those who talk about victory, such as McCain, have no concrete plan on how to achieve it. Do you SuperLib?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Betzee: forgive me if I am wrong, but your example is missing something, wasn't it at that time when Bangladesh and Pakistan broke away from India and starting yet another war which is still going on today?

Won't that happen in Iraq and if so wouldn't the Sunnis and Kurds be at a great risk?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

In fact, he is credited with killing 300,000

OK, so the man you fought so hard to keep in power is credited with killing 300,000 people. But enough about your position, let's go back to debating the lack of harsh words from governments in the 1980s. I think you had your soapbox out and ready.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

rjd jr hit the nail right on the head, and made a point that too many war supporters should be understanding.

"If the troops leave, then maybe these people will see the light and the gravity of the situation, and get with the program already. The longer American forces stay there, the Iraqi government and military will continue to have this mindset that they have a crutch. Cut the strings, and let them fight for their own country as it should be."

I just want to know: what is keeping American forces in Iraq?

Is it pride? If so, is pride a good enough reason to keep more U.S. forces in the country at risk of getting killed?

Is it because too much has already been committed? Well, isn't it better to cut your losses rather than commit - and lose - even more than you already have?

Is it to honor the fallen? Frankly,this is an insane argument - to leave more U.S. forces in harms way to get killed, all for the purpose of 'honoring' those who have already died.

I think the war supporters have become too emotionally tied up in this war - and note - all the war supporters on JT are male - who hold 'pride' and 'honor' highly - and who seem more than willing to let their countrymen get killed to uphold these traits.

Which is borderline insane, but will they admit it?

No.

Hence, we are left to deal with claims by the war supporters of:

1/ "We are doing it to bring freedom to the Iraqis!"

BS. The war supporters didn't give a toss about the lives of ordinary Iraqis when the first cruise missiles struck, and still don't to this day.

2/ "We must preserve American interests in the ME."

While you remain near oblivious to your tanking economy at home.

3/ "We must kill the terrorists."

Staying in Iraq is breeding terrorists. You own government has admitted this.

4/ "We need to remain in the ME as a deterrant against a nuclear-armed Iran."

When your own government - through the National Intelligence Estimate report released only last year - found Iran had shuttered it's nuclear program in 2003.

So who are you going to believe - the 16 intelligence agencies that compiled this NIE?

Or a president who has lied umpteen times already?

"In a statement, the New York senator [Clinton] dismissed McCain and said he “promises more of the same Bush policies that have weakened our military, our national security and our standing in the world.”

That's not wrong. One of the big problems with McCain, and the rationale of the war supporters is that they DO NOT HAVE A PLAN.

They have a vague notion of "victory", but [and this is a challenge to the war supporters on JT, superLib, nucular, etc.] no realistic definition of what it is.

And talking about "winning."

nucular - "Who won? The Iraqi people?"

About the only group that has benefitted from this war are defence and oil companies.

It's like chasing clouds.....

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Superlib - "OK, so the man you fought so hard to keep in power is credited with killing 300,000 people."

Are you pretending you care about ordinary Iraqis again? Sarge has done this a number of times. It makes him look like an idiot.

I'll ask - where was your concern about the livelihoods of Iraqis when the cruise missiles first struck?

That's right. zippo.....

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I'm also concerned about why the war supporters on JT - who appear so adamant about taking the fight to the enemy and killing all the terrorists - remain seated comfortably behind their computers day in and day out, without doing anything to support the war besides debating on a website.

And let's not mention they back the policies to the hilt of a serial draft dodger (Cheney) and a president whose daddy got him out of fighting in Viet Nam.

At least John McCain had the guts to go and fight in a real war zone.

Which is exponentially more than can be said of the war supporters on JT, sadly.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Following on from my last post - Frankly, it must be pretty insulting to the U.S. troops in the field - they and their families seem to be the only ones who are really at risk of sustaining loss, while there is lots of talk but very little real support from Americans back home.

In fact, there's no shortage of talk: talk of support, talk of victory, talk of regime change, talk of "winning"; lots of talk mainly by people who have nothing else to offer.

I want to put this out there to people like Superlib, nucular, Sarge, etc. - can you tell us HOW you have supported the U.S. war effort.

It would be interesting to see how much you really support the troops.

John McCain, although I disagree with a bunch of his policies including his non-existant Iraq strategy, at least had the fortitude to get off his butt and fight in a war zone to back up his convictions.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"McCain says Iraq war can be won by 2013"

Where can I buy what he's smoking? :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sushi, Your post earlier, is kind of long. Allow me to condense it.

The war supporters believe this (and this is so fun for me, I am ALWAYS told what my beliefs are here by neo-cons, time for some table-turning):

Because there could be nothing worse than fighting the terrorists on American streets and in American homes, we invaded and bombed the hell out of Iraq in order to fight the terrorists over there...because we love the Iraqi people so much.

If your own beliefs contradict each other...you may be a neo-con.

Taka

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"McCain says Iraq war can be won by 2013"

That sounds lovely, but while Sen. McCain is free to dream, what he should be doing is telling Americans exactly how - should he become President - his administration intends to pay for 5 more years of war.

Or did nuts and bolts issues like war funding slip his mind because it's election time?

"If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem." — George W. Bush, Jan. 2001.

Oops! Things might have been better if Bush had followed his own advice.

Sadly, he didn't and current and future generations of Americans are now left with a debt of more than $500 billion.

This is triple Iraq's per-person GDP. It's like spending $121,000 per person ($484,000 per family of 4) in the US.

Q: Why isn't the U.S. Government spending $121,000 per person on Americans?

Unfortunately, some of those Americans, including the war supporters on JT, seem to think war funding is an issue that will manage itself, or 'if you wrap the flag tight enough around yourself, you won't notice it!'

It's this type of attitude that is partly behind America's sinking economy.

Before the war, White House economic adviser Lawrence Lindsay estimated the cost at $100 to $200 billion. So the White House got rid of him and "re-estimated" the cost at $50 to $60 billion. It's now over $500 billion.

The neocons, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, etc. were just totally unrealistic. "We are dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon." – Wolfowitz, March 28, 2003.

While hoping for "victory" is commendable, you also need a realistic strategy.

At the moment Sen. McCain does not have a strategy to win in Iraq.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Taka313 - "Because there could be nothing worse than fighting the terrorists on American streets and in American homes, we invaded and bombed the hell out of Iraq in order to fight the terrorists over there...because we love the Iraqi people so much."

After a couple of bottles of Jack Daniels, you'd probably be right :-)

In fact, your logic is about as infallable as that other Neocon gem -

"We 'needed' to invade Iraq [and of course they won't mention it - kill Iraqis] to bring freedom to Iraqis and 'liberate' them from that nasty dictator Saddam!"

Taka - "If your own beliefs contradict each other...you may be a neo-con."

You're probably right. I've already been told on this thread that I must be a Karl Rove supporter - beam me up Fantasyland! :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sushi I was just having some fun with you. If I have time I'll get around to reading your posts later. I figured I'd just quickly take the upper hand in the debate then watch you freak out. That's time you'll never get back.

I am ALWAYS told what my beliefs are here by neo-cons

Taka, that works both ways, buddy. Sometimes I have to ask the person what they think my position is because I'm not even sure what we're arguing about. Try sorting through that. ;)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Superlib, I'm feeling somewhat exonerated to see you can't state the ways in which you support the troops - besides, of course, typing stuff on Japan Today.

Pretty much par for the course among war supporters as I see it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Heh. McCain's off his trolly but I see we're no longer taling of 100 joyful years of occupation.

Other than the obvious points already made on this thread about trusting republican claims (albiet claims that have no actual planning), how the hell can we believe this old bod when he's made such monumental errors like with his summer gas tax "plan". McCain claimed it would cost no more than an average government project. Only Reality said it was something like 1400 times the cost of an average project. And this guy wants to be CoC??

Oh dear.

Heh. Republicans and Reality don't seem to hit it off, as I've seen on here for many a long year.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Superlib, in fact, I would go as far as to question the "patriotism" of yourself and the other war supporters on JT.

Tough talk isn't patriotism.

Maybe you should follow John McCain's example and actually...you know...get out of your chair and do something constructive instead of furiously ..um....typing stuff?

I'm sure the troops in the field you appear to support would appreciate it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sushi,

You do know Superlib will be voting for Obama?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Madverts - "You do know Superlib will be voting for Obama?"

Heh, the Republican candidates this year must have been quite a crop :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Wow, it seems like when I asked war supporters to explain how they are personally supporting the Iraq war, it went All Quiet On The JT Front.

Amazing.........

0 ( +0 / -0 )

'“By January 2013, America has welcomed home most of the servicemen and women who have sacrificed terribly so that America might be secure in her freedom. The Iraq War has been won,”'

Interesting use of tenses; 'by' without the past tense strictly indicates the future (I'll have this job finished by 10 o'clock), while the use of has + past participle is the present perfect (meaning it's already been won, and has been over for some time).

Nit-picking aside, the speech could have only been funnier if he war a cape and a long conical hat with moons and stars painted on it. This kook McCain clearly suffers the same mental ineptitude as Bush does, and has already sealed his own fate.

Not to worry though, few remaining war-supporters! "By tomorrow McCain has issued a statement chiding people who oppose him, saying 'I did not mean what I said', and, 'people are misrepresenting me by quoting me exactly', and SHAZAM! It has come to pass".

But here... let me illustrate it in a likely press-conference scenario:

McCain: I gladly welcome you here today, and appreciate the time you have taken to come and allow me to answer your questions. Reporter #1: Thank you, sir. Now, you are known to be... how should I say this... well, you seem to have quite a temper when people refute your claims. McCain: (grins) I'm not sure what this has to do with my statements the other day, but if you mean I don't kowtow to terrorists and stand my ground with conviction, then you are absolutely correct. I don't back down.

(some laughter and a few claps amongst the press)

Reporter #1: Isn't it true though that you have sworn at your own lawmakers and even snapped at reporters when they ask you to repeat what you've said and you deny it? McCain: (face contorts into a web of wrinkles, colours like a tomato) Why you little mother fu--..... hehehe... I know what you're trying to do. Again, I don't bow down to terrorists. NEXT QUESTION!! Reporter #2: So you predict that the war will be won by 2013, and Bin Laden killed. McCain: (chortles) only if I'm elected!

(more laughter)

Reporter #2: Can we have your sources on that, sir? Where do you get your facts from? McCain: (grunts, face turning red) I... I just KNOW. I KNEW WWII would end, and it did, didn't it? The war in Iraq will also end some day, of course! R#2: Ummm... you didn't say 'some day', you said in 2013. McCain: YOU'RE FU%&'$G DEAD!

(McCain lunges from behind the podium in a fury but is dragged off by staff. He then appears on TV the next day saying that he did not in fact try to attack the reporter, and that people his took his words to mean he was angry and wanted to kill the reporter).

Ah, I'm tired and kind of lost my touch on this one.... but the fact of the matter remains; outlying a plan for attempting victory is one thing, proclaiming you have supernatural abilities and can foresee the future if ONLY you are elected is not only a poor argument to try and sway things in your favour, but is out and out insanity. I can't wait to see him burst a blood vessel over trying to defend this rubbish.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Hope you all caught my use of 'war' for the phonetic equivalent 'wore' when referring to McCain the 'future teller' wearing a cape, etc. hehehe.

Alright, it was a very untimely typo, but at least I can have fun with it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"You do know Superlib will be voting for Obama?"

Funny you should mention that. My response to Taka was done with that in mind, that being the fact I'm voting for Obama but others tell me I'm voting for McCain. It is pretty crazy how others give your your position then start arguing from there, even if it's not really your position. Sometimes you just sit back and watch them argue with the imaginary person in their head while you just kind of watch it all happen.

This website mostly separates people into those who supported the invasion and those who did not. I have other Democrats accusing me of being Republican and I think it's mostly because they assume that since I supported the invasion then I support Bush and the Republican Party. I'm anti-gun, anti-capital punishment, anti-religion, pro-gay marriage, I believe in global warming, I defend Islam, I've voted Democrat in every election in my life...yet tell someone I supported the invasion and suddenly I'm hanging out with George W every night and I always have been. Some people really just can't get beyond the war.

Besides...you know I supported Iraq from the humanitarian point of view. That's historically a very strong pillar of the Democratic Party.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Besides...you know I supported Iraq from the humanitarian point of view. That's historically a very strong pillar of the Democratic Party.

So?????

0 ( +0 / -0 )

But back to McCain....

I think he's going about it the wrong way. People don't really buy into the concept of "winning" as with past wars. A politician can use that word to sell an idea, but it's just not that practical anymore, especially with anything concerning the Middle East.

The Democrats should focus on the here and now. They've tried to sell the concept of an immediate withdrawal but that isn't going to work and most people know it. I know Obama wants to talk to Iran and that's a good point to talk about. They're the biggest problem in Iraq, and Obama can sell that as a problem that he's going to approach differently which might produce different results which could help to bring the troops home faster. They can talk about different approaches to paying some of the costs of the war. They can talk about healthcare for veterans. They need to bridge the gap between invasion supporters and non-supporters and say this is what we're dealing with now and this is how we're going to solve it. If they can sell themselves as leaders then they'll win. If they can't, they'll probably win anyway, but it will be really close.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This war is going to won without the support of the liberals on this site.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Sometimes you just sit back and watch them argue with the imaginary person in their head while you just kind of watch it all happen."

Heh. Scary, innit? It's like a certain person who the mods refuse me to name that keeps returning from his "ban" like a bad smell. Not that I'm complaining - JT wouldn't be quaint without the resident nutters!

The war was a pretty emotive issue and none of us have got over it - especially as the misery continues.

Do you really think McCain, heh, if elected, could end the war by 2013? And all that without a plan? How's he gonna do it?

Obviously he's using that date in the desperate hope that he'll be elected this fall and is already deluding his dodderyness about a second term in office....but still!

Personally, I think the 2013 figure he pulled from his ass. Like his gas tax figure.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Since I supported the invasion then I support Bush and the Republican Party.

You have a quality which is shared by many on the Right, namely the need to personalize everything before arriving at an opinion. In other words, it's really all about "me, me, me!"

Ditto for the emphasis on Saddam. In fact the issue is not whether he's a bad guy (and when Washington decided he was one), but whether the United States should essentially overturn the existing international system by launching a "pre-emptive strike." It was long ago realized, like back in the 16th century, such actions had the potential to cause instability far beyond the borders of the target country. Iraq's neighbors are acutely aware of this today.

Yes, Skip, I glossed over the history of South Asia after the departure of the British. Another difference is those economies were not based on natural resource extraction. Saddam, precisely because he could rely on oil sales, never allowed much of an off-farm manufacturing economy to develop in Iraq. Consequently, few instiutions which could provide the backbone for civil society existed.

It's clear SuperLib has no more idea than McCain how to create stability in Iraq. But they are both confident the loss of other peoples' lives will be worth it in the end.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Betzee,

"But they are both confident the loss of other peoples' lives will be worth it in the end."

And we are both confident (I assume) that the lives lost keeping Saddam in power would have been worth not causing this disaster. Whilst I still believe we're right, Superlib's point is valid. He may be a tad grumpy (no offence intended SL ;) ) but I still respect his opinion!

And besides - I'm sick of being called a "lefty" because I opposed the invasion and continue to oppose the occupation when it has nothing to do with political leanings.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

'm sick of being called a "lefty" because I opposed the invasion and continue to oppose the occupation when it has nothing to do with political leanings.

Labels, along with the moderate and radical designations, are simply a means for the person using them to try to control the direction in th exchange (instead of advancing an argument based on facts, historical comparisions, whatever).

Reasonable people can disagree. But those who are heavily reliant on labeling as a rhetoric means of "divide and conquer" rarely fall into that category.

I don't see this as an issue of "whether we should have kept Saddam in power." The international system is based on respect for state sovereignty. There are exceptions; in the case of genocide, for example. But Iraq after the mid-1990s was a post-genocidal state. More people were dying from the sanctions than at the hands of Saddam's goons.

There was certainly a humanitarian case to be made for taking him out, but it's not the case GWB made to go to war in 2003. So confident were some of resounding success that the need for allies was dismissed on the grounds, "they will just slow is down." Doesn't look that way now, with McCain claiming we will have won by 2013.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"The international system is based on respect for state sovereignty. "

And where do failed states like Afghanistan fit in your neat little scheme?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This war is going to won without the support of the liberals on this site.

I agree Sarge. Too bad the winner will be Iran.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

nucular: "And where do failed states like Afghanistan fit in your neat little scheme?"

At a higher ranking than failed states like the US. At least Afghanistan can blame the US for its failure, while the latter has only itself to blame. History has shown time and time again that US attempts at regime change always inevitably result in an even worse leader whom they suddenly pretend they had nothing to do with and must, 'overthrow'. Current Iran comes to mind in particular, as did Iraq (and will again), and we need not mention Osama Bin Laden as a prime example of a 'genius' CIA creation (oops! just mentioned him!). A most recent failed attempt at a coups which get noticeable mention is Venezuela, and the Hez get a US award for overthrowing the government and winning democratically. No doubt they soon will need 'regime change', despite the fact that they were elected using the very tools the bush government purports to embrace. Sad sad sad.

So now back to McCain and the Iraq war, you can see how support for more of the moronic US policies that lead to illegal invasions and regime change, and subsequent wars that will be over in '90 days' (or by 2013... which is about the same, right?), is exactly that.... moronic.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Betzee,

"I don't see this as an issue of "whether we should have kept Saddam in power." "

Perhaps, but this has long been Superlib's argument - if you opposed the war then you supported keeping Saddam in power. I know technically this isn't right because Bush Co forced our hand, but Superlib isn't a radical. One day, and I'll wager it's before 2013, he and the other Americans that truly supported this for humanitarian reasons will let out a sigh, realize that despite their good intentions the job in Iraq be buggered, and join us on this side of the fence.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Failed states, like Afghanistan or Somalia, one can get international backing on. GWB did not advance a "failed state" argument to invade Iraq, rather it was the specter of "the mushroom cloud."

I've come to the conclusion that powers such as the U.S. are better off avoiding wars. The reason for this is that our strength lies in superior weaponry, which has deterrent value as long as enemies believe they could be the targets. But we're not going to deploy advanced technology to win in Iraq or Afghanistan which would, in the process, obliterate them. So instead we're stuck fighting an insurgency on the ground, multiple insurgencies in fact, with no end in sight. It's a battle that too few want to sign on for based on the well-documented problems of American military recruitment.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Nessie,

"Too bad the winner will be Iran."

And "al-Qaida".

0 ( +0 / -0 )

" The reason for this is that our strength lies in superior weaponry, "

Exactly!

How can we expect to threaten Iran and their nuclear ambitions when the mullah's are bad laughing at the Americans in their homemade Iraqi quagmire?

The gamblme hasn't paid off, and Bush Co have spunked the family silver. If the neocons Delusional plan for the famous domino democracy had worked, it sure would have freked the despots in the region.

Sadly, Delusion it certainly was.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Madverts, For several years there's been talk of a US strike on Iranian nuclear facilities. The debate has largely been diverted here into one of whether this development is for "peaceful purposes" as Tehran claims. In fact intent, which is not verifiable, is irrelevant; capability is what counts.

But such a strike would rattle world financial markets (and cause the price of oil to spike). That makes it too risky and the mullahs know it.

For the US, the Powell doctrine on war is the way to go (and avoid situations such as the one we find ourselves in in Iraq.)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Well Betzee, I'm just waiting for the desperately needed enema at the Whitehouse. The I'm sure the American government will seem less derranged to the rest of the world and hopefully, when Obama is elected president he'll do what Superlib is suggesting, and actually talk to Iran.

Hard power, thanks to the f'up in Iraq, is firmly off the table for a while.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And this guy is running for President? He has supporters? What does "won" actually mean? In five years radical islam will be dead ...? Sure, and I suppose David Copperfield will be next VP.

He should have had the nads to stick with his 100-years in Iraq approach. It was way more realistic. Truth is of course, that he knows it's going to be 100 years, it's just that 5 sounds better. Makes him more of a "realist".

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Maruku,

"He has supporters?"

Yeah. There's three of 'em. And they all post on Japan Today....imagine that! That makes me feel special.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The real McCain is a guy called Lieberman.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This is a campaign speech. That is all.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Jambon: "This is a campaign speech. That is all."

No, it's not. It's a promise to those who have nothing left to hope for (ie., the few remaining bush supporters and those who wish to regain some integrity in the republican party), and is based on ZERO fact. Worse yet, McCain refuses to release his genius plan that will end it by then.....

....but wait..... I'm having a premonition too..... wait...... it's..... it's..... it's that IF he's elected only THEN will he try to come up with a plan to back up his bogus claim, which he will of course 'never have meant' and spend his entire term denying.

Fortunately, he'll never get it, and this 'campaign speech' of his, as you call it, will do nothing but give support to his opponents. I guess the Democrats can thank him that no one in their right mind in this day and age believes in 'magic' when it comes to premonitions and miraculously solving wars started by McCain's own party.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Nessie ( 09:32 ) - I hope you haven't bet too much on the present government of Iran winning any wars with the West.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I hope you haven't bet too much on the present government of Iran winning any wars with the West.

I sure haven't, Sarge. Unlike the neo-con nutters running the US, I don't gamble on war.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Nessie - So, you don't really think "Iran will be the winner" then.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Uh, sarge,

Iran isn't fighting a war in Iraq. The US is.

But Iran will be the winner.

I know that's a difficult conundrum on which to ponder, but I have faith you will get there in the end!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

As soon as 2013? Oh, McCain, that's just so encouraging. With a statement like that, there's just no way I could vote for anyone else.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

An US-Iran War? With the Irak and Afgan war still going on? Being realist is dificult but not impossible, just two key words "Military Draft". Then the US sure cant lose.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"there's just no way I could vote for anyone else ( besides McCain )"

Heck, you could vote for Obama and lose the Iraq war by 2010.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Oh, and, uh, madverts,

Nessie: "Too bad the winner will be Iran"

madverts: "And al-Qaida"

Dream on.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Oops, I forgot that there was a military draft in Vietnam. Ok, the US still can lose but, at least with a military draft the US have a decent chance in a war with Iran. Without a military draft is a veeery dificult proposition. Bomb Iran and they flood Irak with IEDs, bomb to much Iran and you have Iranians invading Irak for killing americans. I can imagine Al-Qaida trowing a party for celebrate the US attacking another muslim nation with no conection with them. In fact I can imagine Al-Qaida making a come back in Irak and entering on Iran if the US distract troops from the fight with them. Im not an expert, but the US dont have infinite troops. Sarge... do you really want something like a military draft?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This is a campaign speech. That is all.

So this is the way we should look at flip-flopping? McCain has not only been highly critical of Democrats who suggest a troop withdrawal time table but he skewered Republican rival Mitt Romney when he made such a suggestion. So, having declared victory can be achieved by 2013, what is to prevent the terrorists from waitin' around till 2014 before taking over Iraq? McCain's got a little explain' to do on this one....

0 ( +0 / -0 )

First question: How does McCain know victory can be won by 2013. Next question, what does he mean by victory? Third question, at what cost? I am asking this from what I would imagine to be an American perspective.

My not American perspective is that this guy sounds like Nixon in 1972. He promised the Americans that he had a way out of Vietnam but he wasn't saying what it was. Nixon as president bombed Cambodia. Then he cut and ran, which was the smartest thing he did as president. Cutting and running was called "peace with honor." Then the puppet regime in Saigon fell, causing much suffering. But in the end the Vietnamese then took back their own country. And finally the US is friends with their former enemy. There were no dominos to fall.

My not American perspective is that McCain is talking through his hat. Unless he has a crystal ball or a time machine. My not American perspective is that in trying to win a war with people who want to take their own country back, McCain will commit genocide just as the US did in the Philippines after the Spanish-American war. And my not American perspective is that the US should not have started the war in the first place and has not moral right to win it.

John McCain is another neocon idiot, like George Bush. Under McCain there will be more wars and the Americans will not have the basic social welfare that even we in Japan enjoy under the LDP.

My not American perspective tells me that it is very likely that Bush will start a war with Iran and the war hysteria will push McCain into the White House. By the time 2013 rolls around the Americans will have forgotten all about it, just as they have forgotten all of George Bush's lies. Nothing will change. The US will remain a nation that makes trouble all over the world but cannot properly take of its own people, unlike they are in prison.

Save this article and bring it out in 2013.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

As a letter to the editor of the NYT's observed in 2007:

Throughout the late 60's and into the 70's, L.B.J. Democrats and Nixon Republicans both preached the gospel of ''staying the course,'' predicting the disastrous collapse of the regime in Vietnam if we cut and run.

George McGovern lost the 1972 election in a landslide, but he turned out to be right: President Richard M. Nixon finally extricated us from Vietnam, at a huge cost in dollars, domestic turbulence and lost lives; and the regime in Vietnam collapsed anyway, as it was always going to do.

''Staying the course,'' now as then, is nothing more than an exercise in face-saving, undertaken at horrifying economic and human cost by politicians who happily let others pay the bill.....

The difference here is that we have a volunteer army (as opposed to the draft of the earlier era) which, as McCain knows, is under great stress. We simply cannot sustain this occupation, which will require higher taxes in the next fours years. So I guess McCain is flirting with the idea of "declaring victory" by 2013 and heading home.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

for muslims who are infuriated that the infidels are in their country, i dont see how in 5 years everything will be OK and this war will be "won". complete bs if you ask me. this war cant be won...how can you "win" against religious fundamentalists whose goal is to convert the whole world to their brand of ultra-conservative islam? sorry but its not possible

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Pronoucements like these show that McCain is a doddering idiot, a Vietnam Era fossil, a Cold War dinosaur. Worst than that he is an extension of George W. Bush's and the Neocons' destructive view of foreign policy.

Yes, by 2013 all will be well. In your dreams.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Pathetic, the neo cons have really lost their way. The US faces an economic disaster as big as the Japanese suffered and this fool talks about illegal foreign wars - like its a primary issue.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

jeancolmar, bravo well said you hit the nail square on the head!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

mareo2 silly boy, drafts don't win wars! A government has to have a mandate to draft citizens into the army. The Iraq war lacks that mandate. There's no declartion of war. I realize its a tiny matter but the rule of law supposedly applies in America. And the basic law of the land remains the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

smithinjapan excellent point very well said and put forth.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

People talk about the year 2012. In 21, 2012 we will enter a new age according to the Mayan calendar. An age lasts 5125 years. The Mayans had calculated and studied the stars, planets and calculated that it would take 5125 years for a cycle for the same stars to allign themselves. Maybe Mc Cain had this in mind when he talked about the year 2013.

Good luck Mc Cain and your war in I-raq.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

In December 21, 2012 .

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Pathetic, the neo cons have really lost their way. The US faces an economic disaster as big as the Japanese suffered and this fool talks about illegal foreign wars - like its a primary issue.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Nonacnon, I would be willing to bet that Sen. McCain's 2013 victory date has more to do with passing the war on to another president than it does with the Mayan calendar.

First of all, Sen. McCain doesn't appear to be a Mayan kind of guy in my opinion, but he is a republican, therefore, it's a safe bet that accountability can be thrown out the window.

Taka

0 ( +0 / -0 )

ending by 2013?? hahahaha. he is joking right?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

he rejected suggestions that his talk of a timetable put him on the same side as Democrats clamoring for full-scale troop withdrawals.

Who's accusing him of that? He basically said the war will never end.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Now, now, folks. We should show more respect for the aged. Osama Bin Laden is getting old too, and will probably retire in 2012 after his 1000th video is shown.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Thank you mosci one.

Found another typo--"unless" not "unlike" they are in jail.

I Love the line that McCain is not a Myan type of guy.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Both sides on the debate over the Iraq War do nothing but argue on the internet. The side who supports it does not fight for it. The side that does not support it does just as much to revoke it.

Before you argue on the internet, think to yourself: "Will this make me look more intelligent to anyone that matters?"

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites