Originally posted by no1marauderSo just because a policy is unpopular that makes it an incorrect policy?
Your right wing views are in a decided minority; by a 59%-35% margin, Americans support setting a timetable for withdrawal and by an even greater margin feel the war wasn't worth it. http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm
So McCain's view is admittedly unpopular; you think stubbornly sticking to it is going to help him win the election? ...[text shortened]... t. The Bush-McCain policy as regards Iran is and will continue to be an utter failure.
In regards to Iran, you mean that the Clinton-Bush-McCain policy has failed right?
Originally posted by no1marauderWell the Saudis want a peaceful resolution in Israel unlike Ahmadinejad who wants to wipe them off the face of the earth.
Iraq will never be completely stable esp. under foreign occupation. Bush-McCain have no plan to ever withdraw.
We reason with the Saudis and other Arab nations that don't accept the legitimacy of the creation of Israel; why not with Iran? What use are negotiations if all you do is talk to people who agree with you?
And this is from McCain's website: The best way to secure long-term peace and security is to establish a stable, prosperous, and democratic state in Iraq that poses no threat to its neighbors and contributes to the defeat of terrorists. When Iraqi forces can safeguard their own country, American troops can return home.
Thus, McCain does plan to withdraw.
Originally posted by MoneyManMikeThe thread is about "who won the debate". Espousing a policy that is rejected by a large majority of the populace isn't a good way to "win a debate". At any rate, the people have correctly decided that the Bush-McCain policy for an indefinite, lengthy occupation of Iraq is undesirable (has have the Iraqi government and people).
So just because a policy is unpopular that makes it an incorrect policy?
In regards to Iran, you mean that the Clinton-Bush-McCain policy has failed right?
Last I checked Clinton wasn't on the ballot or President.
Originally posted by MoneyManMikeSo, it is your opinion that you don't deal with the threat, that you just ignore it an hope that it will go away?
So under Obama's assumption, Iraq will be completely stable in 16 months. I think that is flawed reasoning. McCain, on the other hand, wants to maintain a strong presence in Iraq until the country is completely stable, then perform a phased withdrawal. I think McCain's strategy is the better of the two.
About Iran, do you really think Obama could successfully reason with a man who yearns for Israel's ultimate destruction?
Iran has a very strong relationship with Russia and increasing diplomacy with China. Do you think that we will be able to control them with friends like those?
You cannot influence anyone if you don't actually deal with them, as has been proven by the Bush administration. Under the "we don't talk to sponsors of terror" rule Iran's sponsorship of terror has increased and so has their efforts to build nuclear reactors. So you believe that it would be catastrophic if Iran got the bomb, but using your method of diplomacy, Iran has actually come closer than ever to getting one.
As to Iraq, you are for an open ended occupation. When do we "win"? You say that once we leave it will leave it open for Al-Qaeda, but won't that occur regardless of when we leave? So, the hundred year occupation that McCain spoke of is what you are proposing?
Originally posted by MoneyManMikeThe Saudis refuse to have diplomatic relations with Israel and maintain an economic boycott against that country (along with most Arab nations). Their policy is indistinguishable from Iran's in practice. And why should American foreign policy be based solely on what a country thinks of Israel?
Well the Saudis want a peaceful resolution in Israel unlike Ahmadinejad who wants to wipe them off the face of the earth.
And this is from McCain's website: The best way to secure long-term peace and security is to establish a stable, prosperous, and democratic state in Iraq that poses no threat to its neighbors and contributes to the defeat of terr ...[text shortened]... uard their own country, American troops can return home.
Thus, McCain does plan to withdraw.
I don't believe McCain. He's failed to describe any likely scenario that would lead to an American withdrawal from Iraq. His website is incredibly vague as his public statements on the issue have been.
Originally posted by no1marauderI was referring to former President Bill Clinton who imposed an embargo on Iran in 1995. Claiming that the current policy in Iran is partisan, or a "Bush-McCain policy," is incorrect.
The thread is about "who won the debate". Espousing a policy that is rejected by a large majority of the populace isn't a good way to "win a debate". At any rate, the people have correctly decided that the Bush-McCain policy for an indefinite, lengthy occupation of Iraq is undesirable (has have the Iraqi government and people).
Last I checked Clinton wasn't on the ballot or President.
Originally posted by MoneyManMikethose who fail to understand history are doomed to repeat it. McCain's 20th century cold war stance is part of the reason we ended up in Iraq in the first place. We have damaged our standing in the world community with our cowboy diplomacy. Obama wants to mend those fences. McCain is stubbornly sticking to the policies of the old. He isn't willing to open conversations with countries like Iran without preconditions, i.e. you do what we say first, then we'll talk. Has that ever worked in the past? no.
Well, for starters, Obama's notion that we shouldn't have been in Iraq in the first place therefore we should pull out seems very naive to me. The point at issue with Iraq isn't about our previous justifications for the war, but rather that we are already there in great force and how we use that force will affect the stability of the region for the nex ...[text shortened]... ler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Saddam, etc. and it most certainly won't work with Ahmadinejad.
Iran is indeed a worisome rogue nation, however, if we don't get them to the table, we won't make any progress. Its foolish to think that they will reason with us in the same manner as european countries. They have a different sociological perspective, and react to posturing and swagger with the same. It requires a sociologocal imagination, which Obama has, to see and understand that.
1 edit
Originally posted by MoneyManMikeNo, it is not. Bush is the President; McCain wants to be President. They support the same policy. Throwing someone else's name in is a red herring.
I was referring to former President Bill Clinton who imposed an embargo on Iran in 1995. Claiming that the current policy in Iran is partisan, or a "Bush-McCain policy," is incorrect.
BTW, you should check out this site: http://www.mohammadmossadegh.com/news/rumor-of-the-century/
which shows that Ahmadinejad never stated "Israel should be wiped off the map".
EDIT: Your info regarding Clinton is dated:
2000 March - US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright calls for a new start in US-Iranian relations and announces lifting of sanctions on Iranian exports ranging from carpets to food products. Iranian foreign ministry initially welcomes the move, but Ayatollah Khamenei later describes it as deceitful and belated.
2000 September - Mrs Albright meets Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi at UN in New York - the first such talks since diplomatic ties were severed in 1979.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3362443.stm
So Clinton eventually removed sanctions and instituted the first high level talks between the two countries since 1979. Do you still insist that this policy is the same as Bush-McCain's?
Originally posted by CliffLandinThe point at issue during the debate was having talks with Ahmadinejad without preconditions. Obama would go in without preconditions, McCain would go in with preconditions. It is just a testament to Obama's naivety towards how to deal with foreign affairs. I think McCain would strongly disagree with a stance that includes ignoring Iran and hoping that they go away. He actually stated in the debate last night that he advocates low level talks among secretaries of state and ambassadors.
So, it is your opinion that you don't deal with the threat, that you just ignore it an hope that it will go away?
Iran has a very strong relationship with Russia and increasing diplomacy with China. Do you think that we will be able to control them with friends like those?
You cannot influence anyone if you don't actually deal with them, as has bee ...[text shortened]... leave? So, the hundred year occupation that McCain spoke of is what you are proposing?
Considering Ahmadinejad's stance on Israel, I don't believe any thing the US has done has accelerated Iran's innate quest for nuclear weapons.
We win once Iraq is stable and can defend themselves. Reports are that the surge has been largely successful with violence against troops and civilians down 70%. Why should we mess with that? Clearly victory in Iraq is within our grasp and withdrawal may be closer than you think. To answer your second point, I think McCain and military experts believe a resurgent Al-Qaeda in Iraq is unlikely if the country is stable and can effectively quell a rogue insurrections.
1 edit
Originally posted by MoneyManMikeI disagree strongly. The whole idea of preconditions as a prerequisite for meeting is wrong headed. The hole point of dialogue is to discuss and find a way for compromises that both sides benefit from.
The point at issue during the debate was having talks with Ahmadinejad without preconditions. Obama would go in without preconditions, McCain would go in with preconditions. It is just a testament to Obama's naivety towards how to deal with foreign affairs. I think McCain would strongly disagree with a stance that includes ignoring Iran and hoping th n Iraq is unlikely if the country is stable and can effectively quell a rogue insurrections.
This my way or the highway attitude is how we ended up isolating ourselves in the world. It is how we've let our relationship with Russia deteriorate to the current state. It is how we've managed to form a coalition of 2...now 1. Preconditions as a prerequisite are stubborn, and, more importantly, damaging.
Aside from that, Ahmadinejad is only a figure head. The real power lies with Iran's religious rulers.
Originally posted by no1marauderI believe that they didn't remove the embargo completely, only two items. So yes, the so called "Bush-McCain Policy" towards Iran started with Clinton.
No, it is not. Bush is the President; McCain wants to be President. They support the same policy. Throwing someone else's name in is a red herring.
BTW, you should check out this site: http://www.mohammadmossadegh.com/news/rumor-of-the-century/
which shows that Ahmadinejad never stated "Israel should be wiped off the ma ...[text shortened]... two countries since 1979. Do you still insist that this policy is the same as Bush-McCain's?
Ahmadinejad has taken a belligerent stance towards Israel. He wants to hold a referendum among the Palestinians and let them decide what to do about their situation. If the Palestinians believe that the Israelis should be displaced or even exterminated, Ahmadinejad has said that this should be completely accepted. Does this not sound crazy to you?!
Originally posted by MoneyManMike"Victory" in Iraq is non-obtainable. None of the political objectives that Bush said would accompany the "surge" have materialized. The Iraqi government and people and the American people want the US troops out. That's why "we should mess with that".
The point at issue during the debate was having talks with Ahmadinejad without preconditions. Obama would go in without preconditions, McCain would go in with preconditions. It is just a testament to Obama's naivety towards how to deal with foreign affairs. I think McCain would strongly disagree with a stance that includes ignoring Iran and hoping th ...[text shortened]... n Iraq is unlikely if the country is stable and can effectively quell a rogue insurrections.
Al-Qaeda in Iraq didn't exist prior to the occupation and won't be a serious threat to a government in a Shi'ite majority nation. It's reason for existence goes away when the American troops do.
Hundreds of Iraqis continue to die every month during the occupation. It's time to end this bloody fiasco.
Originally posted by MoneyManMikeYou are wrong. Please read this carefully:
I believe that they didn't remove the embargo completely, only two items. So yes, the so called "Bush-McCain Policy" towards Iran started with Clinton.
Ahmadinejad has taken a belligerent stance towards Israel. He wants to hold a referendum among the Palestinians and let them decide what to do about their situation. If the Palestinians believe tha ...[text shortened]... dinejad has said that this should be completely accepted. Does this not sound crazy to you?!
US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright calls for a new start in US-Iranian relations and announces lifting of sanctions on Iranian exports ranging from carpets to food products.
Please cite to a source which has Ahmadinejad stating that the people of Israel should or could be exterminated.
Originally posted by MoneyManMikeClinton never recommended occupying the country.
I believe that they didn't remove the embargo completely, only two items. So yes, the so called "Bush-McCain Policy" towards Iran started with Clinton.
Ahmadinejad has taken a belligerent stance towards Israel. He wants to hold a referendum among the Palestinians and let them decide what to do about their situation. If the Palestinians believe tha ...[text shortened]... dinejad has said that this should be completely accepted. Does this not sound crazy to you?!
Calling Bush's policy a continuation of the same policy is like claiming that the Rain is the same entity as the ocean.
Originally posted by MrHandWe were discussing US foreign relations with Iran. In 1995, President Clinton imposed an embargo on Iran. Therefore, Bush's policy towards Iran isn't unique or partisan (republican) as Obama claims it is.
Clinton never recommended occupying the country.
Calling Bush's policy a continuation of the same policy is like claiming that the Rain is the same entity as the ocean.