McCain!

Roxxxanne wrote:

LOL the RNC is demanding that CNN, etc not run the DNC Anti-McCain ad depicting his own words saying we could stay in Iraq a hundred years.

Of course the fact that the ad in question also shows American soldiers being killed by an explosion doesnt have anything to do with that, does it?

For those who want to know what the ad says, here is the ad...
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/29779_New_DNC_Ad_Shows_US_Troops_Being_Blown_Up

0 Replies

The ad shows the truth. McCain thinks it is OK to stay for 100 years, but the American public wants us out now. It doesn't matter that McCain contemplates a peaceful stay. Bases in the ME are what caused 9/11 -- Arabs countries don't want foreign troops in their countries under any conditions.

0 Replies

Ramafuchs wrote:

All are not equal.

Henry Miller of Franck Harris are not Shakespeare

Let us learn from others
instead of belittling /demeaning the views of others.

Equal? We hold that very thing, at point of creation, to be self-evident here in the land of the free/home of the brave.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

The ad shows the truth. McCain thinks it is OK to stay for 100 years, but the American public wants us out now. It doesn't matter that McCain contemplates a peaceful stay. Bases in the ME are what caused 9/11 -- Arabs countries don't want foreign troops in their countries under any conditions.

Then why arent you complaining about the bases in Germany, Japan, and Korea that have been there for over 50 years?

And as far as Arab countries and what they want, you have no idea what you are talking about.
There are several countries in the Arab world that welcome our presence.
Countries like Bahrain and Kuwait are immediate examples.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

Advocate wrote:
The ad shows the truth. McCain thinks it is OK to stay for 100 years, but the American public wants us out now. It doesn't matter that McCain contemplates a peaceful stay. Bases in the ME are what caused 9/11 -- Arabs countries don't want foreign troops in their countries under any conditions.

Then why arent you complaining about the bases in Germany, Japan, and Korea that have been there for over 50 years?

And as far as Arab countries and what they want, you have no idea what you are talking about.
There are several countries in the Arab world that welcome our presence.
Countries like Bahrain and Kuwait are immediate examples.

It is irrelevant that some countries in the ME want us there. By our being there, we are basically defending those countries, which puts our country on the line to go to war. For instance, we should get out of S. Korea, partly because all our troops there would be immediately killed should NK invade. Rumsfeld recently said as much. I am also against foreign bases in general -- they are tremendously costly, dangerous to our interests, and really unneeded. BTW, bin-Laden said that the 9/11 attack was because of our presence in Arab countries.

0 Replies

Rumsfeld has not been the Secretary of Defense for quite some time now, so i rather doubt that he had anything to say about Korea recently. As for a claim that all of our troops there would be killed if Joe Ching jumps, i doubt that, too. I'd say you have little idea of the forces we have deployed there, where they are deployed and how they are supported. I Corps is almost entirely made up of artillery and armored battalions. Additionally, there are army air battalions, which is to say, helicopter units. Many of the artillery battalions are comprised of missile batteries, which can strike Joe Ching's artillery emplacements and advanced deployments while remaining out of range of the North Korean artillery. The United States Air Force also has several large air bases, and more than enough resources to deal with Joe Ching's air forces, as well as to provide close air support to the army.

The only way "all our troops there would be immediately killed" would be as a result of monumental incompetence unprecedented in history. I certainly think we have no business maintaining bases in the middle east, and doubt the value of continued deployments in Europe. However, our forces deployed in the ROK and Japan are in our interest and that of the Asian Pacific rim region, for so long as an idiot like Kim Jong Il remains in power. The Korean deployment makes more sense than just about any other overseas deployment we have.

0 Replies

What patent nonsense!

0 Replies

Given that i doubt you have the least notion either of what the military capabilities of Joe Ching are, or how many forces we have deployed there, how they are deployed, and how they integrate with ROK forces, that is an hilariously ironic remark on your part.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

Then why arent you complaining about the bases in Germany, Japan, and Korea that have been there for over 50 years?

I'd say because those are "safe" basis whose only role has been one of deterrent effect.

Permanent US bases in Iraq would remain a hotspot target for war, terror and murder for decades. Most Americans dont want American soldiers to stay for that. The Korea/Germany comparison is pretty much void in that respect.

0 Replies

I think Habibi's thesis is more or less plausible, but i doubt that it would be true that American bases in Iraq would necessarily be a focus for "terror and murder for decades." They would, however, play into the hands of muslim extremist propagandists. ObL got bent out of shape because "infidel" troops were stationed in Saudi Arabia, the home of the holiest places in Islam--specifically, the places about which Sunnis are most likely to obsess.

Iraq is the home of the holiest places for Shi'ite muslims. That means both Hezbollah (the bar majority of Lebanese are muslim, and the distinct majority of those are Shi'ite) and the Persians. What would be more likely is that American bases in Iraq could be effectively used by the Shi'ite majority as a shield behind which to ethnically cleanse Iraq of Sunnis, while continuing to be seen as a provocation of Shi'ites outside Iraq.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

I think Habibi's thesis is more or less plausible, but i doubt that it would be true that American bases in Iraq would necessarily be a focus for "terror and murder for decades."

I am not very optimistic about chances of peace in Iraq ... I see it as a new Lebanon. And there's been "terror and murder" there for decades now..

Plus, I see US bases in Iraq as something that would perpetuate the terror, a continuous source of fuel for it. Chances of peace are better without such a deep American military presence inviting ever new attacks.

I agree about how permanent bases would also play into the hands of muslim extremist propagandists, though; aside from any actual targeting of the bases, their existence would be used as recruitment tool.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

Arabs countries don't want foreign troops in their countries under any conditions.

This is just to rich.
You follow up that statement with this...

Quote:

It is irrelevant that some countries in the ME want us there

So,first you say they dont want us there, then you say it doesnt matter that they WANT US THERE.
So, do they want us there or not?

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Setanta wrote:
I think Habibi's thesis is more or less plausible, but i doubt that it would be true that American bases in Iraq would necessarily be a focus for "terror and murder for decades."

I am not very optimistic about chances of peace in Iraq ... I see it as a new Lebanon. And there's been "terror and murder" there for decades now..

Plus, I see US bases in Iraq as something that would perpetuate the terror, a continuous source of fuel for it. Chances of peace are better without such a deep American military presence inviting ever new attacks.

I agree about how permanent bases would also play into the hands of muslim extremist propagandists, though; aside from any actual targeting of the bases, their existence would be used as recruitment tool.

It is worth noting that i made my own editorial change, and said that i did not think that American bases in Iraq would be the focus of terror and murder--a not very subtle reference to the likelihood that Americans could remain in Iraq for a long time amidst terror and murder without being it's target.

I don't think an analogy with the Lebanon is necessary apt, because the Lebanon is kept continually destabilized by its neighbors Israel and Syria, and with a good deal of Persian influence and money. This would not necessarily be the case with Iraq. Persians and Syrians, and wacko Wahhabis from Saudi Arabia could infiltrate Iraq and carry out harrassment attacks on Shi'ites or Sunnis as the hatred moves them--but the could not destabilize Iraq as Israel and Syria do the Lebanon, as long as American troops remain there in large numbers.

None of which should be construed as support on my part for a continued American presence in Iraq.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Given that i doubt you have the least notion either of what the military capabilities of Joe Ching are, or how many forces we have deployed there, how they are deployed, and how they integrate with ROK forces, that is an hilariously ironic remark on your part.

There was nothing ironic about my remark. It was a serious statement. BTW, your reference to "Joe Ching" is pretty obnoxious, which is on par with most of your writing.

0 Replies

The mainstream media ask Obama why he doesn't wear a flag pin, but they aren't asking McCain why he doesn't release his medical records. McCain, who would be the oldest man ever elected president, had surgery for melanoma, a potentially fatal skin cancer, eight years ago - the scar is still prominent on his face. He has promised several times to release the records, but each release has been postponed.

It makes you wonder: is there something in McCain's medical records that he doesn't want you to know?

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion/313214/mccain_s_medical_records_why_the_delay

0 Replies

Ramafuchs wrote:

The mainstream media ask Obama why he doesn't wear a flag pin, but they aren't asking McCain why he doesn't release his medical records. McCain, who would be the oldest man ever elected president, had surgery for melanoma, a potentially fatal skin cancer, eight years ago - the scar is still prominent on his face. He has promised several times to release the records, but each release has been postponed.

It makes you wonder: is there something in McCain's medical records that he doesn't want you to know?

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion/313214/mccain_s_medical_records_why_the_delay

Firstoff, just to freshen up the issue, the lifespan of an individual of a given species can usually be measured effectively in terms of caloric intake. McCain has been calorie restricted for 6-years that we know about, so we can give him 3-years that way, beyond that he's a professional fighter, and he's hereditarily predisposed to longevity. Also, skin cancer is the most cureable and one of the most common types. I'd bet my ass on a low correlation to age as well - I know someone what had it at age 20 - is she to be invalidated?

Second, and more importantly, he's the man, for christ's sake! We've got the perfect body, a bit out of date, relatively speaking, close to perfect mind, perfect experience/background, and most importantly, close to perfect vision. If the body lets us down, we can count on the will for at least a year - and then whoever his pro-tempore would be...

I'm close to posting about the confusion over the role of federal, state, and local governent - I see it as a real problem, not just because folk don't know, but because they're self-righteous enough to push their thing at any, and especially the highest level.. At any rate for this office, taking a senior statesman, provided the seniority is worthwhile (as it most certainly is in McCain's case), even at the risk of his taking medical leave which I would simply bet the $600 in my apartment against, beats the hell out of turning the executive branch at the federal level over to a sub-optimal candidate (Hilly) let alone and an amateur (BHO)...

0 Replies

Hanno
"I know someone what had it at age 20 - is she to be invalidated?"

No and once again no. Neither age nor gender nor colour should play a role to select a President.
My above quote expose the media's hypocracy and not about the candidate..
Moreover if i were an American citizen i will pick up a healthy one.
Thank you
Rama

0 Replies

And if you wish to know my views about the quick fix candidate from GOP.
Here is an indian who speak my language.

McCain's Mask
By VIJAY PRASHAD

Young John McCain’s friends called him McNasty. He was swift to anger and had a sharp tongue. There was little room for anyone who displeased him. That predisposition has mellowed but not vanished. McCain is known for his off-colour jokes and asides. One legendary “joke” captures both his heartlessness and his bigotry. “Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly?” he asks. “Because her father is Janet Reno.”

Most of this information on McCain is hidden in plain sight. Perhaps these themes will become an issue in the general election. But it is unlikely. This is largely because McCain dazzles the reporters who cover his side of the campaign, and they form his first constituency. Nothing McNasty does is abhorrent, only “straight-talk”.

http://www.counterpunch.org/prashad04232008.html

0 Replies

How old was Reagan when he was first sworn in? I saw signs of dementia in him right from the beginning, and he was absolutely bonkers at the end of his second term.

What kind of mental condition will old-man McCain be in should he be elected. It is a valid consideration.

0 Replies

Quote:

McCain Tax Cuts Would Bloat Deficit Or Take Huge Spending Curbs

Wall Street Journal
By Laura Meckler
April 22, 2008

Quote:

Sen. John McCain is proposing tax cuts that would either cause the federal deficit to explode or would require unprecedented spending cuts equal to one-third of federal spending on domestic programs...Altogether, he proposes more than $650 billion in tax cuts a year, much of it benefiting corporations and upper-income families. That includes the cost of extending tax cuts implemented under President Bush that he voted against twice. To help pay for it all, the Arizona senator says he would cut $160 billion a year from a federal discretionary budget that totals a little more than $1 trillion. He hasn't specified where the cuts would come from...The chances of cuts of this magnitude are 'nonexistent,' said Robert Bixby, executive director of the Concord Coalition, a nonpartisan group that promotes fiscal discipline. 'There's not a consensus to cut back on the functions of government that much,' he said. 'Those are very, very deep cuts...'

Quote:

Sen. McCain says he will eliminate wasteful military spending, but he also promises to increase the size of the military, and he has promised to keep U.S. forces in Iraq as long as needed. In addition, several new weapons systems are in development...That leaves domestic spending. The cuts that would be needed to balance the books are 'inconceivable,' and 'wildly draconian,' Mr. Greenstein said. 'No president would really propose it and no Congress of either party would really pass it...' To really cut federal spending, experts say, Sen. McCain would need to attack Social Security and Medicare, popular programs serving seniors. 'If you're going to get serious about spending, you have to turn to the entitlement programs,' said the Concord Coalition's Mr. Bixby...

Quote:

Sen. McCain's chief economic adviser, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, says he doesn't have to find offsetting spending cuts for extending the Bush tax cuts or for eliminating the AMT for middle-class families because those policies are assumed in Washington. Nonetheless, projected deficits will increase if these taxes are cut without offsetting spending reductions. His campaign also says there is no cost to a proposal regarding the tax treatment of capital expenses. Outside experts put the cost at tens of billions of dollars a year. Under that plan, the federal government would take an upfront tax hit and be forced to pay additional interest on a larger national debt, said Ronald Pearlman, a tax professor at Georgetown Law Center and assistant secretary for tax policy under President Reagan. To say there is no cost to the government is 'so intellectually dishonest it's outrageous,' Mr. Pearlman said. Mr. Bounds, the McCain spokesman, responded: 'Clearly there is a difference of opinion here.'

Those are excerpts - for the full article, click here:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120882415111033181.html?mod=todays_us_page_one

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know