What is Digg?61 Comments
- zediker, on 10/12/2007, -1/+50Too bad its not a military victory that would end the turmoil in Iraq. All a military victory does is put a hold on the fighting. What is needed is a cultural victory, but I dont even know where to start to make that happen.
- zediker, on 10/12/2007, -4/+31Let me clarify what I mean by cultural victory. I am not advocating an abolishment of their beliefs or traditions. I just think that maybe it would help tremendously if they saw things in various shades of grey rather than just plain black and white. Infact, alot of cultures could benifit from this, even the western nations. Universal education would also help as well. I am sure a majority of Iraqis have a great deal of education, it just appears that alot of what is going on could be prevented if people were more open minded. Which is something you hopefully learn when you recieve a higher education.
- ayeroxor, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14It takes a bold man to admit the... clearly obvious?
- MalaysianMafia, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13centerists win. its just a fact.
lean extreme for the primaries, then to the center for the generals = win. - david76, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13Unfortunately, McCain was saying we need to "Stay the Course" just before the election.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=UjbDQyxhIXo - Popdmb, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10The country needs a president that doesn't talk in tubes.
Obama's youth is more of a positive than a negative. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10zediker:
>I just think that maybe it would help tremendously if they saw things in various shades of grey rather than just plain black and white.
Extremists are like that, saying things like "You're either with us or for the terrorists." - rockefeller, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8How exactly do you define a military victory in Iraq? Suppressing the insurgency? Establishing a democracy?
Whatever happens, the place is going to go to total ***** whenever US troops pull out, either tomorrow or 1 year from now or whenever. Policy makers in Washington can analyze it all they want, and plan all they want, but they can't resolve it.
The only difference between pulling out tomorrow and pulling out a year from now is the US troop body count. - rockefeller, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5How about a presidential race where not 1 of the candidates is riding on his/her relative's name? And how about a race without any negative ad campaigns, a race where candidates say what they're going to do, not dig up dirt and put words into the mouths of their opponents.
These elections are getting more unethical as the years go on. - ninesquaredis81, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Maybe I'm wrong - but how is saying we need *more* troops in Iraq a leftist comment? Admittedly, it's not the Republican party line - but it sure isn't the Democrat's party line (i.e. phased troop reductions). I for one respect him for coming out with an opinion that is his own opinion - regardless of whether I agree with him.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"Unfortunately, McCain was saying we need to "Stay the Course" just before the election."
After initially liking McCain years back, I've noticed over the years that he's the commensurate politician -- say whatever you think people want to hear and contradict yourself, hoping that the masses won't notice. Don't take *anything* this guy says at face value, he's a shameless opportunist. - rippyd, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5This is no longer a war that can be won with troops. If we can to suppress the insurgency we need to double to triple the number of troops we have there. But if we did that, it would be years before we could start to pull out, maybe a decade. Sending more troops would help to stabilize Iraq short term, but I can't see how it helps long term. And it puts more Americans in danger.
Iraq needs to get their act together and figure out what kind of country they want to be. They need to give us an estimate of when their troops are going to be ready so we can start making plans to leave. They need to figure out how they're going to manage an Iraqi insurgency long term. Fight them? Bring them into the government? Divide up the country? Whatever they choose to do, they need to something. This is now largely a political problem, and it's going to require a mostly political solution. - stonebear, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3McCain’s reasoning is based on a sunk-cost fallacy:
http://www.slate.com/id/2125910/
Unfortunately, while such thinking is great for casinos and terrorists, it’s disastrous for a nation at war. The window of opportunity is closed, THE NEOCONS BLEW IT. We don’t need thousands more casualties to figure it out, as we did in Vietnam. Nothing to do now but back off and build up strength for the inevitable war with Iran, and possibly China. - interiot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3This is not new. McCain has been consistently calling for more troops for years. Making it sound like he finally capitulated, or that this is news, is wrong.
- omaryak, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"Thus far we've had a kind of half-assed effort going on because the politicians have been waffling between sending the necessary troops and equipment and trying to please the Angry Mob"
They could have sent more troops when the mob wasn't so angry – they didn't. I don't see how more force this far down the line is going to solve the situation now that it's already out of hand. - Memitim, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2We already acheived military victory in Iraq. Our troops fully occupy the country and maintain an amazing level of control. As much as people like to bitch about the casualties, and I am one of them but only because I knew from the start that this was a stupid idea, we have acheived an astounding military feat as far as history is concerned. Its just the occupation that has been ***** up, and that is more of a political exercise than a military one. The simple fact of the matter is that we have just become way too soft to be effective invaders. We either need to lining the streets with heads on pikes while colonizing the ***** of the country or get the hell out and let the chips fall where they may. Besides, watching Iran steamroll over the place to cozy up against Saudi Arabia might just make the whole damned thing worth it in the end.
- BrandonMills, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2He mentions it's a failed plan AFTER the 2006 elections.
Mr. Straight Talk Express my ***. - ninesquaredis81, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2mrkamikaze - I agree that he may be playing politics here and I'm definitely not saying I'd vote for him for president. But to be honest, I prefer this style of playing politics to the other styles we see so much of - push polls, swift boating, outright dishonesty, etc. Of course, forgetting politics and making sound policy would be the best answer, but if you have to play games at least your game should be idea based and forward thinking.
- thcobbs, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Any ticket with Hillary in it is begging for a quick resignation of who ever is "running for president" so that the Democrats can put the first woman president in and side-step the Public.
- Mrkamikaze, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@ninesquaredis81
Good leaders stand on principles and have a clear message. Mccain sways with the wind and you never know where he is at on the issues. The guys is worthless and his judegment needs to be questioned everytime - nypix, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2If Mr. McCain likes the idea of committing more troops to win, I'd like him to outline what exactly we'd be winning.
Until then I don't agree with him. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -9/+11May George Bush drink the blood of every man, woman and child in Iraq!
- jonesyhahaha, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1He's only saying this to garner Democrat support for his presidential run in 2008. He's still a f*cking loser.
- Irimi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1So what? There are probably a lot of people with a lot more earthly experience and wisdom than him who would say the opposite. There are probably a lot of people with more earthly wisdom and experience than those people who would contradict those people. Then there are probably a few with even more wisdom and experience who would say the exact opposite, and so on and so forth.
His opinion matters only so much as people let it matter.
I want us to win and succeed in a Iraq, so I don't let it matter much. Give us a better alternative besides giving up and I might listen. We just have to win in Iraq though. There is no other option, and by win I mean that Iraq becomes a stable and secure democracy where terrorism and hysteria are not considered socially acceptable. - donloper, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Yeah right, you mean like Bush? Oh wait, you are right.
- Ajajadude, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I agree. It's up to the Iraqi people to make things better. I think it was up to them in the first place. There's many different courses of action the U.S. could take, but it's all up to the Iraqi people to make it work.
Amazing someone stating the obvious can be news. Maybe it's because it's a Republican Congressman doing it... - atb12688, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5McCain/Rice 2008 woot! vs. Obama/Clinton
- VolatileWhimsy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Bias towards increasing Hispanics?
Hmm... I don't see it like that at all..
Can you be more definitive?
Aren't the laws for all cultures? Do you think there should be special laws just for hispanics than? - heffae, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1So far Obama has my vote but any Ticket with Hillary in is a disaster. Personally I don't have much of an opinion of her either way. But the Republicans I know see her as one step up from the Devil. (Hell Satan might be do better in a general election). After these last 8 years we desperately need someone who's very name doesn't cause people to froth at the mouth. I propose Obama/Rice and then in 4 years they can run as Rice/Obama
- DangerMouse9, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Welcome to the world of politics. Have a cookie and some juice.
- LeftistPersona, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1'If you mean by 'military victory' an Iraqi government that can be established and whose writ runs across the whole country, that gets the civil war under control and sectarian violence under control in a time period that the political processes of the democracies will support, I don't believe that is possible.''
- Homerr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"to ensure a military victory"
Ahem, we already did that. We need a political victory now. And a hearts & minds victory.
Not being clear on the language muddles an already murky subject even more. - LeftistPersona, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1McCain and many of the dissenting Republicans have stated that they are predicting defeat in Iraq if President BUsh doesn't do anything. McCain holds the same views that many republicans have been holding, which is as stated by Kissinger, ''If you mean by 'military victory' an Iraqi government that can be established and whose writ runs across the whole country, that gets the civil war under control and sectarian violence under control in a time period that the political processes of the democracies will support, I don't believe that is possible,''
However, McCain and almost all of these Republicans, and also many democrats, feel that to ensure that victory occurs, we need to send more troops to establish the government, and then to withdraw. McCain is NOT saying we need to send more troops and just keep them there, he wants a short term increase in troops in Iraq, then a gradual withdrawal. - ejan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1How about McCain/Giuliani. As a democrat, even I could get behind that.
- wild, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5"I am for gay marriage, but I don't know where you get "remove" from..."
Well, when you put the word "ban" on an amendment, I call that a removal. As for melting pot, we have good laws for a lot of cultures, but we have a growing bias towards the increasing hispanic population. - withears, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Ok, so for once I am going to agree with this opportunistic, say-anything-to-get-votes, pandering John McCain.
Our current troops levels are NOT sufficient to do the job. That is a fact that is acknowledged by pretty much any military expert. There are other examples of prolonged occupations and the troop levels required to sustain that occupation. Our current troops aren't nearly enough.
So what do you do?
You either (a) get out or (b) go all in.
If we're going to go all in (which is what it sounds like McCain wants to do), we need more troops. Any idea where those are going to come from? Volunteers? Do you really think so?
Either way, this is just another attempt by McCain to distance himself from the administration he has helped prop up for the last 6 years.
Sorry John, you've got the stench on you. It doesn't wash out easily. - koko775, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I liked him and really would have smiled upon his running for president...then he lectured at Jerry Falwell university (who he doesn't even like) and started pandering to the evangelicals. Sorry, nope, any candidate that relies on religious voters rather than good policy to get into DC needs no vote from me.
- isellmacs, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Part of the problem with the "growing bias against hispanics" is that it really isn't about hispanics, it's about mexcians who hate america comming to america and ***** it up.
Now, i'm sure you're thinking i'm just some racist ***** who hates hispanics and thinks all hispanics naturally hate america. Thats not the case. The simple fact of the matter is that alot of good americans are indeed hispanic, were born here and grew up loving their country.
On the other hand, there is ALOT of illegal immigration from Mexico, and alot of them REALLY do hate americans. I'm not joking, or making a racist comment, it's direct experience, there is a very large segment of illegals from Mexico that hate america and americans. - alger82, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I read about some Democrats' proposals to bring back the draft today and the rationale behind it is interesting. If we did have the draft again, elected officials would no doubt be MUCH more careful about allowing the US to go to war. If there was a draft in place before this whole "War On Terror," you better be damn sure we'd have not gone in to Iraq on the shaky evidence and pretense we went in on.
If the possibility of wartime came up with an active draft in our country, we would all be thinking long and hard before sending our people out, and voters would make sure everything is on the up and up—that our reasoning for entering into any war would be well investigated and debated before anything were to be decided.
While the possibility me being drafted is there, I think this rationale is at the very least thought-provoking. - uberneoconcert, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Admits?" you mean he wants to be The One who can say he "admitted" (but not take responsibility for) something so that he's in a slightly better position to run for presidency. 'Admits' is EXACTLY the word he'd want people to use to slant his action his way. Sorry for being didactic but I feel an obligation to you Diggers.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0McCain wants war -- whose kidding who?
McCain comes from filthy rich; sent to primo schools; ended up in Nam & caught (sold out, but who cares). His position comes from his desire of retribution from Nam. Nothing to do with today.
Then, when he became political, he couldn't choose whether to be Dem or Rep. He landed that pot of gold when he buddied with Bush. Now, he has access to everyone's info (Patriot Act) and he & my ex have ability to make war decisions.
Even if there was a billion-man march on Washington to get out of Iraq, we wouldn't. In case you can't figure it out, it is not about freedom - it's about MONEY - and only that. - Mrkamikaze, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Most elections are lesser of two evils votes...this matchup is like satan vs beezelbub. Condi is good at what she does but not presidential material.
- isthisnametaken, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I agree with thcobbs. There are way too many "hell no! Not hillary" people out there. Including me.
- VolatileWhimsy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1It would be nice to have every day people run vs the "priviliged"
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -15/+15Either we finish this right or it goes on forever. Admittedly the cause for being there sucked (and continues to be retroactively revised about once every six months), but the fact remains that we are already there. Time to man up and deal with the situation.
Thus far we've had a kind of half-assed effort going on because the politicians have been waffling between sending the necessary troops and equipment and trying to please the Angry Mob. The American people will never be happy as long as their sons and daughters are dying on foreign soil (and rightly so), and the administration needs to acknowledge that. That doesn't absolve us of the responsibility of finishing what we started.
We screwed up, we're there. We need to commit, get the necessary reinforcements over there, rebuild, and get the hell out. Just pulling out because the public is pissed isn't good enough, because then the whole house of cards comes down and we become the nation that ran away. - Philoushka, on 10/12/2007, -7/+6May they roast the stomachs of Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney in hell.
- donloper, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1McCain also admits that he thinks that criticizing the GOP for anything negative he can find makes him look like a better candidate. Trouble is it just makes him look worse to solid GOP voters, and he's not going to get a big chunk of Dems anyway. I predict he won't make it through the primaries.
- DangerMouse9, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1United States: "Me fail war?! That's unpossible!"
- thcobbs, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3Obama is too young, and Hillary has a 40%+ "will not vote" rating
- Mrkamikaze, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1"Maybe I'm wrong - but how is saying we need *more* troops in Iraq a leftist comment? Admittedly, it's not the Republican party line - but it sure isn't the Democrat's party line (i.e. phased troop reductions)."
Coming from Mccain its him trying to be involved and play politics. Comments like his makes him appear commited to the Iraq war but ultimately doesn't go either way. The guy is worthless and could never win against hillary. -
Show 51 - 61 of 61 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is