Is Obama or McCain right on the Iraq War?

Question

"John McCain has made a mistake in his thinking about Iraq and Afghanistan. We cannot say in Iraq indefinitely, particularly when the Iraqis wants us to leave by a certain date. We are less safe if extremists in Afghanistan and Pakistan regain and expand their strength. McCain was wrong in 2003 and is wrong now. We should have taken the fight to the enemy and not gone into Iraq." -RW

"In 2003, John McCain told the Council on Foreign Relations that Iraq was his big concern and we could "muddle through in Afghanistan" without a large number of forces.

As a former combat victim of the Vietnam War, I find this inept assessment of the real war on the ground speaks volumes. McCain will perpetuate the errors of the chicken hawk Bush administration and further destroy American's economy, standing in the world and our military." -PE-

More than 4,000 US soldiers have died. How many more will have to die to satisfy McCain's thirst for blood?

Answer 1

I think that McCain is right. I don't think you can put a time frame on winning this war....also, look how much damage Viet Nam did to this country. It wouldn't have been that way if we were allowed to win that war.

Answer 2

I do not think that we can afford to "muddle through in Afghanistan" but seeing as how Bush's planned attack didn't work either, I don't know what to think. The easy solution is that we just leave. That leaves a few major holes, though. A little while ago I heard that all the terrorists had been traced to Afghanistan and Pakistan. Well, I have family in Pakistan and they are not terrorists so I find it hard to believe that we may be bombing Pakistan in a few years. Bombs really don't solve anything, except perhaps population control. We left Iraq in a mess. Sure, we got rid of the dictator. We left them with many little dictators and no one to trust, no government to protect them. Even now, it's quite normal to hear a CNN report of three more suicide bombers and an attack that killed 30 people (i really did hear that this morning. Then the reporter moved on to say that, for good news, gas prices are going down. Why do we care so much about gas when people are killing others?) However, from Bush's standpoint, he didn't have much of a choice. Unfortunately, he picked badly. If we attack a country and pull down its whole government, we have to have a civilian-representative government waiting backstage to take over when the 'enemy' is gone. That's part of the reason why Obama's trip impressed me. He was not hassled by the crowd and he remained friendly the whole time. If those countries have someone they trust in power, they will be much more willing to follow. While saying that, I don't know if we can afford not to keep the troops out there. We do need some sort of government in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and all the countries who are unfortunately behind the times. Yes, their government is not humane for those of us elsewhere, but it is the only government they know and we feel we have to drag them kicking and screaming into a copy of our government. Sorry for the long answer, only one more thing, I promise!: I think it is a bit dramatic to say McCain has 'a thirst for blood'. He's pro-war, but he's not a shark.

Answer 3

Former "combat veteran" is what you state, with duty in 'Nam.

Okay, benefit of the doubt. However when Gen. Petraeus disagrees with Obama, as McCain does, who should receive more credibility ? Two VETERANS or some wet behind the ears, inexperienced and obnoxious wannabee ?

And why don't you add "bloodthirsty" to the ALL the Democrats, voted in to get us out of Iraq, years ago ? Or ALL the Congressmen/women, who VOTED for the war initially ? Why ?

Because they ALL like McCain were lied to. And McCain NEVER used the word "muddle" through about Afghanistan and in fact, supported troop expansion there, AFTER Iraq was subdued by the "surge", which Obama STATED over and over again, would NOT work. Now the coward can't bring himself to admit he was wrong. One last point. It's been Obama in little "hints" and innuendo who has talked about "downsizing" the military, at a time in our history when we need every soldier we can.

And in your "veteran" experience, just HOW would you take a "war" TO guerilla warfare, just like 'Nam ? In 2003 Iraq WAS a major issue and McCain was the ONLY one advocating the "surge", while Obama was crying and weeping about getting the troops out NOW. Amazing how the Obamaman has changed his tune.....AGAIN and again....and again.

Answer 4

So you're a combat vet from Vietnam?? I wasnt aware that women were allowed to fight during vietnam...... Oh, maybe you're screen name is incorrect and you arent a female.



Get real, McCian said from the beginning that we needed a much larger force in Iraq to make sure we didnt have problems. Bush didnt listen and we had problems. Had we gone in the way McCain wanted, we would have probably been out of Iraq by now.



Stop taking the drugs man, they are messing up your mind.

Answer 5

below died in all different US wars different than the Gulf conflict under vast Bush, and this conflict has been longer than the others different than Vietnam. death is the conventional fee of conflict and us protection tension human beings understand that moving into. different than Obama, i assume that could advise I might desire to take a mulligan and vote for McCain.

Answer 6

I don't see McCain's argument so this question is biased. McCain is right. It would be too much of a disaster for America to leave Iraq before we finish the job. And it won't be 100 years.

Answer 7

Well, Obama was not a senator when the vote for the war was cast.......so he had no say.

He did have a vote when it came time to supply our troops ....he said NO.

He said the surge would not work.....it did.

Obama said he would pull troops out in sixteen months, of course we would have to leave support troops.....maybe we would have to leave troops there after the war like we have in WWII, I think we still have bases and troops there over sixty years later, probably will be there indefinitely.........who knows maybe a 100 years.........

McCain is a war veteran......I take exception with you calling him blood thirsty.....my father in law was in WWII, my brother in Viet Nam and my son in the Persian Gulf.........I respect the people who wore the uniform and defended our soil and lives..........you need to think before you call people blood thirsty.

I don't like war, I have lost people I have loved to war.......but I don't think it is one person that affects the war.

Answer 8

McCain

Answer 9

um you need to get a grip and stop chasing Unicorns. Bottom line, you would probably be the first to complain about gas prices and guess what, if Iran backed terrorist took over Iraq witch "oh by the way" control the hormez streight where 30% of the worlds oil supply passes through not to mention the countles amounts of oil under Iraq were taken over, it would reck americas economy and our way of life.

Answer 10

Obama. McCain keeps getting the basic facts wrong. Without an assertive stance from the White House on pulling out troops--and this White House has flipped and flopped on the issue all day--we'll be there forever. Obama '08.

Answer 11

Your idiotic assertion that McCain has a "thirst for blood" makes your entire question ridiculous.



McCain 08

Answer 12

Without even reading your details, the answer is Obama. There is NO RIGHT to the Iraq War. The Iraq War is not RIGHT, and is NOT JUSTIFIABLE. The only RIGHT is to end the war, which is Obama's stance.

Answer 13

McCain. Vote for McCain !!!

Answer 14

Obama was right and I trust his discretion a lot more than the opposition's.

Answer 15

obama

Answer 16

Obama, no question.