McCain believes Iraq war can be won by 2013

Why were they "floundering"? Because they lost sight of the end game while bickering in party politics.

What was McCain doing in 2006?

Introducing an "ala carte" bill for cable companies, going after the blogosphee for "icky" thoughts with an ill thought out online child protection act that would have done more harm to websites just like this one than it would have stopped one single predator, siding yet again with Russ Feingold in the Water Resources Planning and Modernization Act of 2006 that would make any persistent damp spot in your yard Federal property.

History? Wake up and smell the socialism...

Why were they "floundering"? Because they lost sight of the end game while bickering in party politics. What was McCain doing in 2006?

What was McCain doing in 2006?

I already documented it for you with 2006 era links. Do you have a reading comprehension problem?

Is it not enough to put History in front of you for you to read? Does History have to be spoon fed to you too?

In 2006, as I already documented, John McCain was advocating the "Aggressive Surge" policy that, since Rumsfeld was fired and the policy was adopted, destroyed the power of al Qaeda in Iraq, destroyed the Sunni insurgency and is now destroying the power of the Shiite insurgent Mahdi Army of Muqtada al-Sadr that had a strangle-hold on Iraqi politics during Donald Rumsfeld's watch.

And what are YOU doing in 2008?

You are doing everything you can to ensure that people vote against the man whose "Aggressive Surge" policy is now snatching Victory from the jaws of Defeat so that the man that has PROMISED to bug out and lose the war can become Commander-in-Chief.

As things stand right now, the only way that the U.S. can lose the war is to have people in the Home Front like YOU put Barack Obama, who has promised to lose the war, in the White House.

During the American Civil War, people like you used to be called "Copperheads".

I have wasted enough time with you and its time to move on.

Working with Ally Nations, undermining Dictators by providing support for dissident groups, exporting Capitalism to help over turn Communism/Socialism... These are all laudable goals that our State Department already works towards.

To bounce your own argument back at you: Quote me the clause in the Constitution authorizing ANY Branch of the government to undermine Dictators by providing support for dissident groups, export Capitalism, or help turn over Communism/Socialism.

The current argument hinges on us militarily setting up little Empirical fiefdoms around the globe.

No it doesn't. What "the current argument"? Nothing I've said hinges on "us setting up fiefdoms".

There are better targets that would yield far superior results than anything in the ME. Mexico, Venezuela, and even Canada come to mind.

'Targets' of what? What 'results' do you mean?

We beat the hell of of the Axis and had reconstruction plans well under way during WWII in the same amount of time it's taken us to hold our ownin this "police action" in Iraq.

I'm still waiting for your point. Even if you're right here, what's your point?

In the repub base, the war still gets high marks. One must first secure ones base.

I don't understand this. What is "the repub base" and why must one secure them "first"? I would have thought that the "base" consists of the people who will vote for Repubs no matter what. If that's not what "base" means, well then, it's not a very good "base" at all, is it? Anyhow, I'm supposed to imagine this group of people which is supposedly "the repub base" and yet somehow, their votes are very unstable and unpredictable and McCain will have to work very hard to get their votes "first". Also, apparently this group of people (the "base") gives the Iraq endeavor "high marks", so they will vote for (R)s if they "run on" Iraq, but...but not if they don't?

Does that about sum up the picture you're trying to paint? Because it makes approximately zero-point-zero sense to me.

Here's a more sensible overall picture of the political scene: there are people (like many Freepers, probably including myself :) who would never vote for the (D) in a million years. These are the people it makes sense to call "the base". No (R) has to "work" to get our vote. They don't have to "run on Iraq" or not "run on Iraq" for that matter; we are the hard-liners. So, instead of the "base", what an intelligent (R) candidate will do is make his pitch to the middle. That is who he has to appeal to, if he wants to win.

The middle of the country is, as I said, rather unhappy with the Iraq endeavor. Therefore the notion of any (R) "running on Iraq" makes no sense whatsoever. Maybe McCain or others will try this, if they are stupid. And then they will lose.

But I've never really understood this concept of a "base" that is utterly flighty and fickle and needs to be "secured", like some sort of mentally-unstable girlfriend who is constantly flirting with other guys. People who fit that description are not a "base" in any sense, so when people use the term like that I really have no idea what they are talking about.

To bounce your own argument back at you...

So you conceed that the argument is valid? Kind of negates your original thesis then. Good work.

'Targets' of what? What 'results' do you mean?

Preventing terrorist attacks. Securing resources. "Providing for the common defense". Controlling the Nations along our borders, in our hemi-sphere, with a majority of our imported oil and fuel would make excellent tactical sense. Most of the 9-11 terrorists came over via Canada.

This other thing is just gamesmenship. It will do little over all to secure our Nation one iota.

Even if you're right here, what's your point?

My point is that we should have never relaxed our mission posture. We should have smashed Sadr and anyone else who raised a weapon against us. Scorched Earth. Burn the whole nest out and salt the ground. This piddling about trying to set up a USA Friendly Nation in the middle of the worst bunch of mental defectives the planet has ever seen is like growing a rose in the desert. No matter how much it takes you to keep it alive and make it thrive, the minute you leave it to flourish on it's own it will die.

Hundred of Billions of dollars spent and a few thousand lives lost that needn't have been lost because the Quislings in the government stopped fighting it AS a war and turned instead to "making friends and being compassionate".

McCain has no more plan to end the war soon than any other politician in either Major Party. It's a vote buying issue, a military-industrial-complex support mechanism, and it scares the Sheep. No way an opportunist like him would pass up that much leverage.

[To bounce your own argument back at you...] So you conceed that the argument is valid?

No, just demonstrating that even you don't consistently believe in the argument you were making.

Ok, I see what you're saying. Well, I disagree with your claim that invading Canada and/or Mexico would yield more 'results' in these terms. There's no reason to feel like we need to 'control' Canada and/or Mexico in order to buy their oil; as things stand we buy plenty of oil from them, what more would we be attempting to do? As for the terrorist-apprehension angle, I doubt that the effort of invasion and taking over the two countries would pay off in terms of terrorists apprehended.

Most of the 9/11 terrorists may have come "via Canada" but this is not a failure on Canada's part; most of the 9/11 terrorists came here on US visas. We can't very well blame Canada, or accuse Canada of imperfectly preventing terrorists from coming here, nor would 'controlling' Canada have helped one iota, when we were the ones who issued them visas.

My point is that we should have never relaxed our mission posture. We should have smashed Sadr and anyone else who raised a weapon against us.

Hmm. Well I think maybe I agree with you. However I don't see the point of "should haves".

McCain has no more plan to end the war soon than any other politician in either Major Party.

I agree. But I don't think "ending the war" is possible, because it already ended in 2003. What is going on now is a reconstruction and counterinsurgency, not a "war". There's no more territory we're trying to take, for example. So expecting a "plan" to "end the war" doesn't make sense in the first place.

Well, I disagree with your claim that invading Canada and/or Mexico would yield more 'results' in these terms.

They share a geographic border. They are both resource rich. We import more oil from either of them that we do the Middle East. Etc...

And yes, I do believe very strongly in the argument I was making. Once you open that can of worms, we aren't a Constitutional Republic any more and our doom is sealed. It may already be too late...

Could have been won a couple of years ago had we been FIGHTING it AS a WAR...As it is, it's Nation Building and we've never had very good success at that.

The problem is we did fight it as a war, but the war part was more or less over when we booted out Sadam, and the mission became nation building. Instead we spent a disasterous couple of years on nation destruction, turned productive folks into an insurgency that made it ripe for an infestation of Al Qaeda types.

Nation building is tough, and it is not clear anyone has ever been very good at it other than perhaps the Brits who have left some reasonably successful countries in their wake (took a couple of centuries though).

They share a geographic border. They are both resource rich. We import more oil from either of them that we do the Middle East. Etc...

Right, we import lots of oil from them. Already. Their governments do not threaten us nor have they left power vacuums that threaten us. So, there is no problem that would be fixed by invading them. Are you really suggesting there is? If not, please stop the nonsense argument.

And yes, I do believe very strongly in the argument I was making.

Then you presumably also believe that our State department undermining dictators, spreading capitalism/fighting socialism, etc. is wrong because nothing in the Constitution says they can do that sort of thing. Right?

Once you open that can of worms, we aren't a Constitutional Republic any more and our doom is sealed. It may already be too late...

...typed the comfortable American on his computer. "Our doom is sealed". SEALED, I tell you! DOOM!!!!11

Sorry, I just really tire of this sort of hyperbole.

Their governments do not threaten us nor have they left power vacuums that threaten us...

Mexico pushing its surplus population across the border and Hug Chavez and his saber rattling aren't a threat? In what alternate Universe?

Sorry, I just really tire of this sort of hyperbole.

As am I with the oft disproven homily that we can vote for the lesser of two evils and expect them to be our friends.

Mexico pushing its surplus population across the border

If we perceive this as a 'threat', kindly explain why 'invading Mexico' would be a preferable (not to mention easier to implement) solution to 'cracking down on illegal immigration'.

and Hug Chavez and his saber rattling aren't a threat?

'saber rattling', almost by definition, is not a threat. That's why they call it saber rattling (rather than, oh, saber swinging or something). It basically means 'empty threat'. But ok, if Chavez is a threat regardless, then of course our government should do whatever it takes to stave off said threat. What's your point?

Look, do you genuinely think the US should invade and topple the governments of Venezuela, Mexico, and Canada? If not, just knock it off. I really don't know what point you're trying to make (if there is one you could certainly make it more directly), and this is getting tiresome.

Look, do you genuinely think the US should invade and topple the governments of Venezuela, Mexico, and Canada?

No. But you keep missing the point. If we are justified in attacking Iraq in the name of "common defense", then to secure our Nation we must take them over to further secure our Country. The reasons for this are mostly tactical and I've already pointed some of them out. The reasons for attacking our Neighbors are much more germane to National defense than kicking over some M.E. sandbox and spending almost a trillion dollars to do so.

Would have been cheaper as well. I bet we could have taken over the entirety of South America for less than $500 billion.

No. But you keep missing the point. If we are justified in attacking Iraq in the name of "common defense", then to secure our Nation we must take them over to further secure our Country.

If we were justified in attacking Iraq, then we must also attack Canada? That is truly one of the clumsiest attempts at a slippery-slope argument I have ever heard. There are, um, differences between Canada and Iraq; you are either pretending there aren't or implying the differences are unimportant. In either case that is silly and I think you know it. So I'm not going to dignify any more of this nonserious Canada stuff.

The reasons for attacking our Neighbors are much more germane to National defense than kicking over some M.E. sandbox

Not at all, and you have failed to even approach making that case. Bye,

There are, um, differences between Canada and Iraq

Canada has more oil. Shares a border. Harbors terror groups.

Iraq had a dictator and less oil than Texas.

The math is pretty simple.

Not at all...

Yes. Very much so. If you don't like having your own idiotic arguments thrown back at you, find new arguments.

Right, so what I can’t figure out is why you think McCain (or anyone else) would think they would need to “run on Iraq” in order to “secure” their votes. Well, I suppose it shall remain a conundrum.

There are many people that are unhappy with the “choice” that they have this year. While they do not support that Backstabber, perhaps they do support the Iraq War and can be persuaded that way.

There are many people that are unhappy with the “choice” that they have this year. While they do not support that Backstabber, perhaps they do support the Iraq War and can be persuaded that way.

1. I assume the people you are talking about are Republicans who do not like McCain. Are you seriously suggesting that a significant # of such people are likely to switch to Obama? I disagree with that calculus. If McCain's or anyone else's strategy relies on that calculus I believe they are pursuing flawed political strategy. For all the grumbling of many rank and file (R)s, they are still most likely to pull the lever for McCain, and it is not they he needs to win over (again: it is the center). And winning them over would not win him the Presidency (winning over the center would). It's just bad, flawed strategy that truly misreads the political wins you're describing here; it would make literally no sense to "run on Iraq" so he can "secure" the "base" and meanwhile turn off a large % of the center. The numbers there don't add up.

2. Even if there are a significant # of Republicans who don't like McCain, might switch, would only vote for McCain if he talked up Iraq, etc., I don't for the life of me understand why such people would be called "the base". None of these things are characteristic of or analogous to anything resembling a "base". I just don't understand why this term is used or what it is supposed to connote, and the problem is (as per 1. above) it seems to lead to some pretty bizarre political strategizing.

If McCain and/or his advisors really are sitting up there having thought processes such as "let's talk up Iraq because we need to secure the base", they are doomed.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.