AndrewC

Voters split over McCain, Obama on Iraq - Decision '08 - MSNBC.com

I don't agree with it, but there it is. The interesting thing about this is how woefully inept each party's platform is on Iraq. Republicans don't get that no matter what changes in Iraq. The public is done with this war. While Democrats lack any real strategy for dealing with Iraq.

Truth Detector

I believe that your first mistake is taking anything that comes from MSNBC as credible.

That stated, it is obvious that most Americans prefer victory and success in Iraq than failure. The problem is that every day the media bombards them with the distortion and lies that one cannot implement a successful Democracy in Iraq and that Republicans cannot manage it. It is absurd, but that is their argument.

If the American people were INFORMED and had a complete picture of what is occurring not only in the Middle East, but in Europe as well, they would not have such a distorted perspective about Obama's abilities and how naive his positions are on dealing with despots, terrorists and dictators.

I am still going out on a limb and confident that McCain will win in the fall regardless of the mainstream medias attempts to dis-inform the American people.

__________________
Nothing can frighten a Socialist more than the TRUTH; and nothing can frighten Obama more than REALITY

AndrewC

I disagree. Bush and Republicans constantly yap about Iraq, terrorism and making the world safe. Making excuses for why the public isn't swayed by their rhetoric isn't helpful. The public had no problem believing Bush going in. What has changed? Years of failure and uncertainty tend to sour people's willingness to accept the status quo. Actions and events speak louder than "they just don't know the truth like I do".

Truth Detector

Years of failure? Please define what is meant by "years of failure" in Iraq?

Are the years of failure the fact that they have formed their own government for the first time in generations? Are the years of failure the fact that a much larger portion of their populace voted than in our own? Are the years of failure the fact that in less than a month, our military performed spectacularly in defeating one of the largest forces in the Middle East?

Please describe what is meant by "years of failure." I'd like to see your definition.

Could it be you just don't know the WHOLE story of what is happening over there? Could it be your perceptions of what constitutes failure colored by our medias coverage?

Maybe if you knew the WHOLE story, you would be less inclined to describe it as years of failure? Maybe if you understood how our Middle Eastern policy has been an abject failure for over six decades illustrated by the events of 9-11, you would not see it as years of failure?

So with your argument, and the Democrats, we should ensure that failure by pulling out before democracy is assured for the Iraqis. How profound is that?

rsixing

The problem is there is no real defined "victory" presented. There is the standard "if" this is accomplished...but IMO that is more ethereal then concrete. This is a new type of warfare, nothing similar to it in the past to base a "victory" on, so withdrawal at some point, IMO, is the only choice. Whether that is now or later will be dependent on who is elected.

Personally I don't put much stock in McCain and his "experience" claim. A President is not a ship unto himself/herself so "experience" is relative, based on who your support chain is comprised of so if Obama surrounds himself with highly qualified he is as capable as McCain if he surrounds himself with highly qualified.

__________________
It's Bush's fault!

Indy

I've got a pretty good definition for you: Failure is everything that happened after the stellar first month. Wow, that was easy.

__________________
Affiant further sayeth not.

Truth Detector

Okay so you are convinced the OTHER option; pulling out and allowing whatever may happen to occur is the better option. Will this be a better definition to what is defined by what is meant by "victory?"

Would withdrawal be less ethereal and more concrete?

What I find specious about such arguments is that they take the position that their GUESSES as to what will happen if we withdraw as being more concrete than the GUESSES as to what will happen if we remain.

The ONLY thing we can be ASSURED of with a withdrawal is that Osama was correct when he stated that Americans don't have the stomach for a long protracted struggle. The Democrats are desperate to prove him right. The fascinating thing about this is that I cannot fathom how this will make Americans or Iraqi’s safer.

Carry on.

Truth Detector

In other words, you cannot define it so you will avoid it using pithy meaningless one liners....got it.

Carry on.

AndrewC

You essentially restated your previous post. That somehow many Americans, myself included, don't get it. In large numbers the American public continue to label Iraq and indeed much of American policy as failure or not worthwhile. If you don't want to deal with that. That is your business. My point is that blaming everything but Republican policy and rhetoric isn't helpful nor insightful.

Indy

I actually defined it. So what exactly is your beef again?