McCain says Iraq would pose a grave threat to the world if we left - Page 3 - Political Forum

HartParr · 03-19-2008, 10:33 PM

Basically McCain is saying the US is the only thing standing in the way of Iraq becoming a grave threat to the world.

Before we went in and ... well ... fucked things up there, Iraq was no threat to the world.

Saddam was a piece of shit, and he deserved to die for his crimes, but while there he posed no threat to the world.

So, it's pretty easy for any thrid grader to figure out that Iraq wasn't a threat before we went in, but now, if we leave, somehow they'll become one.

It's equally easy for that third grader to figure out that the US has created a monster if McCain is accurate.

So no, we can never leave. We broke it. We now own it.

Sebelius for VP, not Hillary · 03-19-2008, 10:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kansas_Boy

I'm an opponent of this war, but I would agree there could be some negative consequences if we leave now.

However, let's say the Bush administration and WEB are right about what would happen if we leave... is that to say we can never leave? Ever?

That's my problem with this whole conversation. Has Bush gotten us into something we cannot get out of? Will there not be problems whether we leave now or in 50 years?

Do we need to build an entire new military force - one to stay in Iraq forever and one used for everything else?

Eventually there has to be an answer to these questions. How long will it take before we take the training wheels off and let Iraq ride down the sidewalk on its own?

There are more problems in the world and in our own country we need to be addressing aside from Iraq. Will we ever get around to worrying about them?

Let's put partisan politics aside here for one second. Let's just have this one thread where we can tell the truth and not play Democrat vs Republican. The Democrats (probably Obama) if elected will probably pull troops out, maybe 5,000 every month. If McCain gets elected, they shall stay, and maybe he'll pull 25,000 in 2009 or something like that. I'll bet that Bush might even surprise us by taking out 20,000 or so in October, just to help McCain's chances in the general election.

I think that McCain's argument of us keeping troops in there for a long time is reasonable. The violence in Iraq is down like 2/3's or something like that. If we can keep it down, then it won't be so bad. I think we shall have troops in Iraq for at least 10 years let's say. It's a question of how many.

What do you think about something like this?

2009 125,000 in Iraq
2010 90,000
2011 80,000
2012 70,000
2013 60,000
2014 50,000
2015 40,000
2016 30,000
2017 20,000
2018 Gone

pedex · 03-19-2008, 11:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by W.E.B. Du Bois

I don't give a rats ass about semantics. "Grave threat", "dangerous threat", "slightly scary but not terrifying threat". Who gives a shit about stupid catch phrases?

I maintain what I said in my first reply on this thread.

US leaves.
Iran moves its influence in.
Iraq disintegrates into civil war.
Al Qaeda returns.
Saudi Arabia and Syria supports Sunni's. Iran supports Shi'ite.
Turkey and the Northern Kurds fight some more.

It might end there, or it might not. We're already talking about 4 different countries (and one terrorist organization) fighting in Iraq though. I would consider Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Iran part of the world, so McCain's statement is factually correct.

Why don't you try dealing with that instead of concerning yourself with useless semantic arguments?

Because its not a useless semantic argument, McCain is using the argument that it presents a grave threat ie "existential" threat to the US which is what is Constitutionally required in order for the US to justify defending itself and continuing its indefinite presence in Iraq. That by itself is false, a blatant overhyping of the threat by several orders of magnitude.

What is more likely to happen is our own financial issues will force us out, much sooner than wanted as well by the powers that be in my opinion.

Troianii · 03-19-2008, 11:45 PM

A slow withdrawl strategy probably wouldn't be a good idea. When we did that in Vietnam the violence and aggression increased dramatically.

panteth4h2o · 03-20-2008, 07:28 AM

The Opening Post didn't give any links to articles where McCain is saying that Iraq would pose a "threat to the world" if we left, so I'm not sure if he made that type of claim yet. But I do believe that if we pulled out of Iraq, there would more than likely be a complete bloodbath, possibly including the lives of more innocent civilians than we are currently seeing.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that Iraq wasn't invaded under mistaken pretenses, but pulling out at this time does not erase that mistake. I think we should at least make an effort to clean up the mess that we made, instead of bailing out and leaving everyone to fend for themselves.

Sebelius for VP, not Hillary · 03-20-2008, 08:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pedex

Because its not a useless semantic argument, McCain is using the argument that it presents a grave threat ie "existential" threat to the US which is what is Constitutionally required in order for the US to justify defending itself and continuing its indefinite presence in Iraq. That by itself is false, a blatant overhyping of the threat by several orders of magnitude.

What is more likely to happen is our own financial issues will force us out, much sooner than wanted as well by the powers that be in my opinion.

I did a word search for "grave threat" and "existential" in the Constitution and got no hits. Can you show me where it says this?

HartParr · 03-20-2008, 02:05 PM

Quote:

Senator Clinton and Senator Obama will withdraw our forces from Iraq based on an arbitrary timetable designed for the sake of political expediency, and which recklessly ignores the profound human calamity and dire threats to our security that would ensue.

I intend to win the war, and trust in the proven judgment of our commanders there and the courage and selflessness of the Americans they have the honor to command. I share the grief over the terrible losses we have suffered in its prosecution. There is no other candidate for this office who appreciates more than I do just how awful war is. But I know that the costs in lives and treasure we would incur should we fail in Iraq will be far greater than the heartbreaking losses we have suffered to date. And I will not allow that to happen.

Can somebody explain what "winning the Iraq war" means?

dire
adjective
1 the dire economic situation terrible, dreadful, appalling, frightful, awful, atrocious, grim, alarming; grave, serious, disastrous, calamitous, ruinous, hopeless, irretrievable, wretched, desperate, parlous; formal grievous.
2 he was in dire need of help urgent, desperate, pressing, crying, sore, grave, serious, extreme, acute, drastic.
3 dire warnings of fuel shortages ominous, gloomy, grim, dismal, unpropitious, inauspicious, unfavorable, pessimistic.

Shiva_TD · 03-20-2008, 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by W.E.B. Du Bois

Let's put partisan politics aside here for one second. Let's just have this one thread where we can tell the truth and not play Democrat vs Republican. The Democrats (probably Obama) if elected will probably pull troops out, maybe 5,000 every month. If McCain gets elected, they shall stay, and maybe he'll pull 25,000 in 2009 or something like that. I'll bet that Bush might even surprise us by taking out 20,000 or so in October, just to help McCain's chances in the general election.

I think that McCain's argument of us keeping troops in there for a long time is reasonable. The violence in Iraq is down like 2/3's or something like that. If we can keep it down, then it won't be so bad. I think we shall have troops in Iraq for at least 10 years let's say. It's a question of how many.

What do you think about something like this?

2009 125,000 in Iraq
2010 90,000
2011 80,000
2012 70,000
2013 60,000
2014 50,000
2015 40,000
2016 30,000
2017 20,000
2018 Gone

I would support this:

2009 Gone

173grunt · 03-20-2008, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shiva_TD

I would support this:

2009 Gone

Ditto..... McCain has a family history of male warriors. And last night I hear it said, that Civil wars (Iraq was the topic) take about 10 years to settle down.
So now we have the truth. Iraq is a Civil War and we are there to make sure who wins it, period...
Also mentioned was that projections were 60 million for this war. Not the 600 million spent. Remember they lost count of 9 billion so it doesn't count and alot is spent in R&D.

I have a one day get out plan. The day before you load as many stryker and M-60 tanks with about 20,000 to 40,000 troops to go to Afghanistan.
The next morning all left get on any vehicle that runs and heads across the desert toward the red sea. Where our Navy picks up the whole she bang and brings them home. The state department can do what ever with the "non" diplomats who messed up this entire thing.
Out in one day or two, no B.S............

HartParr · 03-20-2008, 02:59 PM

Here's the kind of reduction I'd support:

This many out by end of:

2008 - 35,000
2009 - 75,000
2010 - 115,000

The only way Iraq shits or gets off the pot is if they're faced with HAVING to take responsibility for themselves.

Since TAKING RESPONSIBILITY FOR ONES AFFAIRS, & NOT EXPECTING THE GOVERNMENT TO TAKE CARE OF YOU is one of the MAIN CONSERVATIVE IDEALS, AND ONE MCCAIN SAID HE CHERISHES, I'd think they'd be advocating this.

Quote:

I am proud to be a conservative, and I make that claim because I share with you that most basic of conservative principles: that liberty is a right conferred by our Creator, not by governments, and that the proper object of justice and the rule of law in our country is not to aggregate power to the state but to protect the liberty and property of its citizens. And like you, I understand, as Edmund Burke observed, that "whenever a separation is made between liberty and justice, neither . . . is safe."

Yet he doesn't apparently feel those ideals should be conferred upon the Iraqis.