0
   

Who has the best plan for how to deal with Iraq?

 
 
Reply Thu 31 Jan, 2008 04:59 pm
Out of the four frontrunners that are left, who makes the most sense on Iraq?

Hillary hasn't actually said anything regarding a specific timetable, but seems to want to end the Iraq war and not maintain any permanent military bases in Iraq. But she has been very careful not to commit to anything concrete as of yet.

Obama says he will start withdrawing troops immediately if elected, with a complete withdrawal by the end of 2008. He does, however, seem to be saying that we would have some military presence there to protect the embassy and other strategic interests. I can't tell exactly what that means regarding the issue of permanent military bases there, but it sounds like for the most part, he's against the idea.

McCain seems to be saying that if we leave Iraq, Iran will jump right in there and make that whole region even more unstable and anti-USA than it is now. He also seems to think that we can still WIN the war in Iraq.

Romney seems to be saying that he wants to get our troops out, but only after making sure that Iraq is stable and able to protect itself. He seems to be the one with the most nebulous plan though, and the one who seems to shy away from any specific ideas on it.

That's it in a nutshell, as far as I can tell. Now, of course, each candidate has left themselves with an "out" on much of this, saying that they can't be sure how things will be when Bush finally leaves office, so who knows what they really will do. But this is how they stand on the issue as things stand now, as far as I can tell.

So what say you? Which of these guys do you believe has the best plan for Iraq? Does McCain have a point about Iran if we pull out?

Thank you for your time and consideration.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 3,465 • Replies: 85
No top replies

 
Asherman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 Jan, 2008 05:09 pm
In my opinion, John McCain has the only approach that is likely to serve this nation's best interests, the interests of the Iraqi People, and have any chance at achieving stability in that troubled region. Romney has the tune right, but doesn't know the lyrics. Of the Democratic candidates, Hillery Clinton's unwillingness to take a stand may mean she has some clue about what is best for the U.S. in Iraq, but is afraid to offend her left-wing. Obama doesn't make much effort to conceal that he is at heart a "surrender monkey" willing to hand over the region to Iran and Radical Islamic Terrorism.

Of course, I'm a conservative Republican... One of those war-mongering conspirators out to seize the world's oil supplies so Texans can become even wealthier and more powerful. Very Happy Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
hanno
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 Jan, 2008 08:23 pm
Given my recent posts, and the tone of the thread this should come as no surprise, but, yeah, McCain.

We don't want another Vietnam - and he sure as hell doesn't either. We don't want to seem weak or abandon the cause - he's incapable of doing so. The man's custom made to clean up this mess.
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 Jan, 2008 08:28 pm
Obama represents me on this issue, McCain represents me least.
0 Replies
 
hanno
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 Jan, 2008 08:42 pm
I dig the option of just getting out, and I dig that you'd call it on principle, but you've got to know there's a real problem here that can't be fixed with the flip of a switch. Did the Republicans get us into it? No Americans hands are clean - we're in this together.

I mean, we back out, those who supported us might get screwed, and any gains we made lost. We could end up losing face with other international threats. We stay and it costs us and it could turn into a bigger mess.

I mean, I know the consensus now is we've got a wolf by the ears, but as for where do we go from here? Only one guy in the race can say for sure...
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 Jan, 2008 08:45 pm
For those who remember our departure from Vietnam, it was a shock to many that the United States, as strong as we are, left in defeat. I believe that resulted in a depression for many that only lifted when Reagan got the hostages back from Iran. Reagan helped make Americans again proud to be Americans. He was therapeutic to the nation.

But, we, as a nation, really haven't had full closure yet on Vietnam. Listen to the a.m. radio stations at night around the country. It's often still '60's music. I don't think we have all put the '60's behind us. It would be another depressive episode to leave Iraq in defeat.

I think we are going to have to deal with Iran's desires to become a regional power. That will likely result in our Navy having to back up our diplomacy. McCain was a Navy man. He is the right medicine for this country, at this point in time in history.

I believe Obama can be President in 20 years when we are living in a more peaceful world.

Personally, I believe Hillary Clinton's boat sailed, and some other smart, tough women will be the first lady President.
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Feb, 2008 07:12 am
McCain. He is the only candidate with the credibility to make it happen in the proper way.

It is just unfortunate any of the candidates had to inherit this mess. So it will take a person with great experience to accomplish the end game.
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Feb, 2008 08:33 am
One small quibble, okay, two small quibbles:
Foofie- Reagan did not get the hostages back from Iran unless someone knows of some of some work that he did before he took office to produce them. They were released on his Inauguration Day, mostly as a rebuke to Carter, but you are right, everybody felt good about them being released.

Hillary has said repeatedly :
Quote:
"Our message to the president is clear. It is time to begin ending this war -- not next year, not next month -- but today.

"We have heard for years now that as the Iraqis stand up, our troops will stand down. Every year, we hear about how next year they may start coming home. Now we are hearing a new version of that yet again from the president as he has more troops in Iraq than ever and the Iraqi government is more fractured and ineffective than ever.

"Well, the right strategy before the surge and post-escalation is the same: start bringing home America's troops now."


and she's coupled that statement with having a plan to provide healthcare for the vets and their families. Pretty important to me.

Except for McCain, who wants to INCREASE and who apparently sees no reason not to have American troops in country for the next hundred years equating our future in Iraq with our presence on Okinawa and in South Korea, everybody (even George W. Bush) is for reducing our forces in Iraq. (Though he did backpedal two days ago on his reduction plan)

The task is larger than just Iraq. It's larger than the Middle East. It's about this nation's ability to sustain it's huge military presence around the world. McCain intends to continue Bush's policy in Iraq and provide combat readiness in the rest of the world. How? Beats me.

Joe(I bet it beats him too)Nation
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Feb, 2008 09:39 am
Staying there only increases the resentment the people in the middle east feel about us being there. We have no right to stay there just to keep Iranians out. It is not our country; it is theirs and if they want Iranians there it is their right as a sovereign country to do so.

In any case; Iranian influences is already there along with the Saudis and Syria...if we stay or leave it won't make a difference either way. All we are doing now is just containing the violence and that is all we will ever do. They should be able slug it out if they want to. We did. We cannot arrange the world like a chess game according to how it benefits us. Its just plain not right; nor does it work as should be painfully obvious by now. People have been trying to control the ME for thousands of years and it has not worked yet.

So; I agree with Hillary and Obama since they both basically say the same. Maybe McCain will change his mind once he gets president as realizes just how much Iraq is sucking us dry in both resources in our military to be ready for other problems of which we have neglected and today even admitted to and in terms of our economy.
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Feb, 2008 11:43 am
Joe Nation wrote:

Foofie- Reagan did not get the hostages back from Iran unless someone knows of some of some work that he did before he took office to produce them. They were released on his Inauguration Day, mostly as a rebuke to Carter, but you are right, everybody felt good about them being released.



I was listening to the pundits then. The common belief was that Reagan was going to utilize our military if the hostages were not released. So, for self-preservation, the hostages were released as soon as Reagan became Commander In Chief. In effect, his reputation, of not being adverse to using the military, preceeded him. Yes, he did get the hostages back.
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Feb, 2008 12:44 pm
I am against any plan that leaves us with permanent military bases in Iraq indefinitely.
0 Replies
 
nappyheadedhohoho
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Feb, 2008 01:05 pm
kickycan wrote:
I am against any plan that leaves us with permanent military bases in Iraq indefinitely.


Just Iraq?
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Feb, 2008 01:13 pm
I don't know about the rest, but this is a thread about Iraq, so I'm just talking about Iraq here.
0 Replies
 
nappyheadedhohoho
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Feb, 2008 01:17 pm
OK. I just wondered "in dealing with Iraq" if you considered bases nearby acceptable.
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Feb, 2008 01:28 pm
Currently, yes, I think they are acceptable.
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Feb, 2008 01:33 pm
Me too, Kicky, but I think we are going to watching over their oilfields for a long time, until the oil runs out at least.

Um..

Foofie wrote:
Joe Nation wrote:

Foofie- Reagan did not get the hostages back from Iran unless someone knows of some of some work that he did before he took office to produce them. They were released on his Inauguration Day, mostly as a rebuke to Carter, but you are right, everybody felt good about them being released.



I was listening to the pundits then. The common belief was that Reagan was going to utilize our military if the hostages were not released. So, for self-preservation, the hostages were released as soon as Reagan became Commander In Chief. In effect, his reputation, of not being adverse to using the military, preceeded him. Yes, he did get the hostages back.


Oh yeah? They and you must have been thinking about the Ronald Reagan in the movies or are you talking about how he smacked down those protesters in Berkley Park as Governor of California?? No military involved, but still.... .

The "tough guy" who was actually IN the White House proved later not so cowboy.

Headline :Iran responsible via Hezbollah for blowing up the Marine barracks in Beirut. Golly, Nancy, what's for lunch?
(he did whip up on those tough tough guys in Grenada TWO days after the Beirut bombing. Wow. Talk about off target)

Headline: Terry Anderson and others held hostage in Lebanon....gee whiz, ,,, I guess instead of the Marines, I'll send Bob McFarlane to Teheran with a cake and some money for the terrorists. That'll show'em.
Who says we don't negotiate with terrorists? Not me, said the Gipper.

The Iranians, just like now, were not exactly shaking in their boots.

Joe(and now back to the actual thread discussion)Nation
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Feb, 2008 01:39 pm
Asherman wrote:
In my opinion, John McCain has the only approach that is likely to serve this nation's best interests, the interests of the Iraqi People, and have any chance at achieving stability in that troubled region. Romney has the tune right, but doesn't know the lyrics. Of the Democratic candidates, Hillery Clinton's unwillingness to take a stand may mean she has some clue about what is best for the U.S. in Iraq, but is afraid to offend her left-wing. Obama doesn't make much effort to conceal that he is at heart a "surrender monkey" willing to hand over the region to Iran and Radical Islamic Terrorism.

Of course, I'm a conservative Republican... One of those war-mongering conspirators out to seize the world's oil supplies so Texans can become even wealthier and more powerful. Very Happy Rolling Eyes


and a damn self important one too.
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Feb, 2008 01:43 pm
Joe Nation wrote:
One small quibble, okay, two small quibbles:
Foofie- Reagan did not get the hostages back from Iran unless someone knows of some of some work that he did before he took office to produce them. They were released on his Inauguration Day, mostly as a rebuke to Carter, but you are right, everybody felt good about them being released.

Hillary has said repeatedly :
Quote:
"Our message to the president is clear. It is time to begin ending this war -- not next year, not next month -- but today.

"We have heard for years now that as the Iraqis stand up, our troops will stand down. Every year, we hear about how next year they may start coming home. Now we are hearing a new version of that yet again from the president as he has more troops in Iraq than ever and the Iraqi government is more fractured and ineffective than ever.

"Well, the right strategy before the surge and post-escalation is the same: start bringing home America's troops now."


and she's coupled that statement with having a plan to provide healthcare for the vets and their families. Pretty important to me.

Except for McCain, who wants to INCREASE and who apparently sees no reason not to have American troops in country for the next hundred years equating our future in Iraq with our presence on Okinawa and in South Korea, everybody (even George W. Bush) is for reducing our forces in Iraq. (Though he did backpedal two days ago on his reduction plan)

The task is larger than just Iraq. It's larger than the Middle East. It's about this nation's ability to sustain it's huge military presence around the world. McCain intends to continue Bush's policy in Iraq and provide combat readiness in the rest of the world. How? Beats me.

Joe(I bet it beats him too)Nation[/quot


agreed....
0 Replies
 
Asherman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Feb, 2008 05:27 pm
Only a humble, self-effacing left-wing bear is less self important than the rest of us.
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Feb, 2008 05:53 pm
Joe Nation wrote:
Me too, Kicky, but I think we are going to watching over their oilfields for a long time, until the oil runs out at least.

Um..

Foofie wrote:
Joe Nation wrote:

Foofie- Reagan did not get the hostages back from Iran unless someone knows of some of some work that he did before he took office to produce them. They were released on his Inauguration Day, mostly as a rebuke to Carter, but you are right, everybody felt good about them being released.



I was listening to the pundits then. The common belief was that Reagan was going to utilize our military if the hostages were not released. So, for self-preservation, the hostages were released as soon as Reagan became Commander In Chief. In effect, his reputation, of not being adverse to using the military, preceeded him. Yes, he did get the hostages back.


Oh yeah? They and you must have been thinking about the Ronald Reagan in the movies or are you talking about how he smacked down those protesters in Berkley Park as Governor of California?? No military involved, but still.... .

The "tough guy" who was actually IN the White House proved later not so cowboy.

Headline :Iran responsible via Hezbollah for blowing up the Marine barracks in Beirut. Golly, Nancy, what's for lunch?
(he did whip up on those tough tough guys in Grenada TWO days after the Beirut bombing. Wow. Talk about off target)

Headline: Terry Anderson and others held hostage in Lebanon....gee whiz, ,,, I guess instead of the Marines, I'll send Bob McFarlane to Teheran with a cake and some money for the terrorists. That'll show'em.
Who says we don't negotiate with terrorists? Not me, said the Gipper.

The Iranians, just like now, were not exactly shaking in their boots.

Joe(and now back to the actual thread discussion)Nation


I've read that some of the gay community is rabidly anti-Reagan, since he supposedly did very little in his administration to fund research for AIDS. That would imply that within all the commentary one hears about Reagan, one can hear some things that might just reflect a prejudicial opinion.

I like Reagan for his helping America regain some of its pride back, after the hostage situation with Iran. I also like the fact he ate jelly beans.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Who has the best plan for how to deal with Iraq?
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 02/24/2021 at 08:00:49