All About McCain

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Cadaverous Pallor

I'll let GD defend his arguments.

I suppose you wouldn't be one to listen to the idea that we should spend less on the military than we do now. The comparisons in how much we spend in Iraq and how much we spend building infrastructure in Afghanistan are ridiculous. Biden alluded to this, not sure if you'd call them lies.

He alluded to this, yes, and his numbers were way, way off from what I've read. I did include that in my thinking of what he lied about.

I will never accept the argument of spending less on the military with an increasingly aggressive Russia, China developing newer technologies and spending on military through the nose, and the fact that national defense is one of the only specifically constitutionally mandated functions of the federal government.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by 3894

According to Bob Woodward's new book The War Within, so was the president's advisory committee, which included James Bakker, Lee Hamilton, Sandra Day O'Connor, some retired generals.

Right (well I assume so. Bob Woodward isn't someone I necessarily take at his word, but that's another story). And Bush didn't support it either, for far too long a time. McCain, though my vote post still stands, got this exactly right and was pushing for a surge long before it happened.

[bewitched]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

Wow, scaeagles and i are both protestation abstaining from voting for our respective party's candidates in state's where they each have a total lock.


The similarities are eerie.

I'm not abstaining, but I am writing in the person I thought would be a far better choice to run our country at this moment in time, Hillary Clinton. Like scaeagles and iSm, I can afford to do this because Kansas is a lock for McCain; if I thought it would be close, I'd vote for Obama. I think he will be fine but he wasn't my choice.

Another thing influencing my decision is my 8yo daughter. She caucused with me (for Clinton) she has been interested in the election and was excited by the idea of a woman president (although that was not the reason I supported Clinton, just a bonus). She has always gone to vote with me and, since she was old enough, has actually pushed the pertinent buttons (or filled in the circles if I voted early). I want her to know that you don't HAVE to tread the party line. That in this country, you are free to vote for whomever you believe in; that we have a 2 party system but it is not the be all end all of how (or for whom) you must vote.

So, this election, I will vote my conscience and in doing so, teach O a little about the political process along the way. (And then we'll move onto the electoral college which oughta really screw with her head.)

[Betty]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

I will never accept the argument of spending less on the military with an increasingly aggressive Russia, China developing newer technologies and spending on military through the nose

Wouldn't you agree that with the war in Iraq we too are "spending on military through the nose"? Yes - unlike Russia and China, how much benefit are we really seeing with that money by comparison?

I guess that depends on how much you feel the war is benefiting us.

[scaeagles]

No. You have to spend what it takes to get the job done. This is not intended to get tinto a discussion as to if we should be there or not - that has been discussed ad infinitum here. It is simply that you have to finish what you start.

[innerSpaceman]

Oh, like the War on Drugs? That can NEVER be finished. Or the War on Terror, that can likewise NEVER be finished.


Don't like the concept wars? How 'bout that War in Vietnam that was never really finished ... just pretty much abandoned. So why "can't" we do that when retreat proves to be the better part of valor?

[scaeagles]

Concept wars are indeed not what I was speaking of, and I think that's obvious.

As far as Vietnam, yes, we never finished the job there....but it look at what happened in Vietnam after we left. What would be good about that? Retreat was certainly not the better part of valor. The Vietnamese were slaughtered by the thousands (if not tens or hundreds of thousands - I'm not exactly sure how many perished in the reeducation camps) and who knows how many Vietnamese boat people died.

[innerSpaceman]

Yes, it was horrible. We do not have the power to stop history, or to stop evil. It may be stupid to get into areas were a power vacuum or our or another element's causing results in regional hatreds, slaughters, and unspeakable atrocities on an unimainable scale. But it's stupider, imo, to then have to ...what?... stay forever to now prevent those forces from being unleashed? Our finger in the dam forever and ever because of our international military blunder? Commitment to drain our country's treasury and young human resources to pay for such militadventurism mistakes for all time?

[scaeagles]

I suppose we view the current situation differently, because it is improving and it is not an indefinite thing we are facing. We will always have a military presence there, but I view that as the same thing as having a presence in Japan or Germany or South Korea.

Regardles of that, I am not one for abandoning commitments. We can debate the price being paid, but in the long run, I believe the price is higher should we stop (a great example over the long term is Reagan and Afghnaistan after the Soviets pulled out).

[Tom]

I am asking, because I don't know, but did Japan, Germany or Korea before their respective wars have internal conflicts like the Sunni/Shiite/Kurd conflicts in Iraq, conflicts between different ethnic or religious groups within the country that were violent and centuries old? Because if they didn't, it would seem to me likely that our long-term military presence in Iraq will be very different than in those other countries.