The Real John McCain

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
21

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

BostonBarrister wrote:
…

Actually, if Iraq were to really go to hell in a handbasket quickly, that would hurt McCain’s chances as well. Iran seems to comprehend this… BBC NEWS | Middle East | Iran 'behind Green Zone attack'

lixy wrote:
And they do that 10 months before the elections because…?

Because it’s far enough away that people will forget it by the election, but if they can destabilize Iraq the U.S. will look bad and McCain’s candidacy will suffer - and he’d the only candidate who has talked about making sure to finish the job in Iraq (though as I’ve said I don’t think either of the other candidates would really pull out right away - they’re just pandering to the base, as Obama’s fired FP advisor essentially said). [/quote]

Make the US look bad? You are outstanding at that job on your own. Why would Iran bother?

More importantly, how’s providing the US with an excuse to stay in Iraq serving Tehran’s interests?

[quote]lixy wrote:
In my opinion, it is the opposite of what you claim. Washington(let’s face it, Petraeus is just another Bushie) is making that claim to boost McCain’s chances.

This whole Iran is aiding Al-Qaeda is beyond ridiculous. It defies common sense. Iran has greatly benefited from the overthrow of Hussein, and they have no possible reason for providing the US with excuses to stay in Iraq. Not to mention that Ben Laden and co. would turn to attacking Tehran the minute they get a chance.

They’ve benefited as long as they don’t get a Turkish-influenced functional democracy - Middle-Eastern style or not - on their doorstep. That would be very bad for the mullahs - and they are fighting hard to stop it. The QUDS isn’t even a proxy force - that is Iranian military.[/quote]

WTF? Iranians already have Turkey on their doorstep. Do you even know your geography?

Iran doesn’t benefit from a destabilized Iraq. They stand to gain a lot from a democratic Iraq. As long as chaos reigns over there, the MEK (just like Al-Qaeda) are the group benefiting from the lawlessness. A democratic Iraq is a natural ally of Tehran, and I don’t see how installing a Turkish-style military dictatorship is going to change that. Iran desperately needs trading partners and as long as Iraq is a failed state, the former suffers greatly.

Now that Saddam is gone, the American military need to demonize another state, and Iran fits the bill perfectly. Washington can now claim that they need to keep Iran in check because of Tehran threatens American freedom and democracy. We’ll have the same stories about how Iranians are connected to Al-Qaeda and 9/11, and how their WMDs are a threat to world peace. I heard it all before, and I wasn’t impressed the first time around.

22

[quote]Sikkario wrote:
Hypothetically, what happens if Iran just invades Iraq?
[/quote]

I wouldn’t worry about it. Whether Iraq ends up democratic or not it will almost definitely be controlled by the Shia majority, who are allies of Iran.

23

[quote]will to power wrote:
Sikkario wrote:
Hypothetically, what happens if Iran just invades Iraq?

I wouldn’t worry about it. Whether Iraq ends up democratic or not it will almost definitely be controlled by the Shia majority, who are allies of Iran.[/quote]

Ya, I think the Turks, are going to be in Iraq for a long time too.

I was just figuring, if the Turks can inviade with 10,000 without permission, what will the Iranians do if the foriegn policy of Obama or Clinton takes charge?

John McCain would fuck Iran back into the stone age. But the 60 day talk of Hillary and Obama, put a white flag to most of the region.

24

[quote]Sikkario wrote:
But the 60 day talk of Hillary and Obama, put a white flag to most of the region.[/quote]

Did Clinton speak of 60 days?

26

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:

http://vietnamveteransagainstmccain.com/

I’ve got less than no confidence in his leadership either. [/quote]

That last vid on that website in re to the pow’s is really disturbing.

Thanks for the other links.

27

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
We’ve complained plenty about Obama recently. I can’t see how any of the other candidates are any better. Here’s the real John McCain:

http://vietnamveteransagainstmccain.com/

I’ve got less than no confidence in his leadership either. [/quote]

I am not a big fan of his but the first thing I saw on this website was:


John McCain:
The Manchurian Candidate connection

It is not worth spending anymore time looking at that crap.

28

[quote]will to power wrote:
Sikkario wrote:
Hypothetically, what happens if Iran just invades Iraq?

I wouldn’t worry about it. Whether Iraq ends up democratic or not it will almost definitely be controlled by the Shia majority, who are allies of Iran.[/quote]

I’ve read that Islam is on the decline in both countries, and especially in Iran. Iran is attempting to re-institute the death penalty for Muslim apostates because of the spread of Christianity. That law could have one of two effects: discouraging people from apostasizing, or spreading Christianity much more quickly. Given the inability of the Roman Empire to suppress the gospel through similar means, and China, I’m going to bet on the latter.

29

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
We’ve complained plenty about Obama recently. I can’t see how any of the other candidates are any better. Here’s the real John McCain:

http://vietnamveteransagainstmccain.com/

I’ve got less than no confidence in his leadership either.

I am not a big fan of his but the first thing I saw on this website was:


John McCain:
The Manchurian Candidate connection

It is not worth spending anymore time looking at that crap.
[/quote]

Have you followed his Gang of Fourteen actions? He has a complete contempt of the American people. He’s an arrogant elitist.

30

[quote]

BostonBarrister wrote:
…

Actually, if Iraq were to really go to hell in a handbasket quickly, that would hurt McCain’s chances as well. Iran seems to comprehend this… BBC NEWS | Middle East | Iran 'behind Green Zone attack'

And they do that 10 months before the elections because…?

BostonBarrister wrote:
Because it’s far enough away that people will forget it by the election, but if they can destabilize Iraq the U.S. will look bad and McCain’s candidacy will suffer - and he’d the only candidate who has talked about making sure to finish the job in Iraq (though as I’ve said I don’t think either of the other candidates would really pull out right away - they’re just pandering to the base, as Obama’s fired FP advisor essentially said).

lixy wrote:
Make the US look bad? You are outstanding at that job on your own. Why would Iran bother?

More importantly, how’s providing the US with an excuse to stay in Iraq serving Tehran’s interests?[/quote]

The U.S. leaving Iraq would leave an influence vacuum. Iran and Saudi Arabia and Turkey would all try to fill it, but Iran is in the catbird seat at the moment - provided the government is weak and that Iran can step in and help control the violence (very easy to do if it’s causing a lot of it).

[quote]lixy wrote:
In my opinion, it is the opposite of what you claim. Washington(let’s face it, Petraeus is just another Bushie) is making that claim to boost McCain’s chances.

This whole Iran is aiding Al-Qaeda is beyond ridiculous. It defies common sense. Iran has greatly benefited from the overthrow of Hussein, and they have no possible reason for providing the US with excuses to stay in Iraq. Not to mention that Ben Laden and co. would turn to attacking Tehran the minute they get a chance.

BostonBarrister wrote:
They’ve benefited as long as they don’t get a Turkish-influenced functional democracy - Middle-Eastern style or not - on their doorstep. That would be very bad for the mullahs - and they are fighting hard to stop it. The QUDS isn’t even a proxy force - that is Iranian military.

lixy wrote:
WTF? Iranians already have Turkey on their doorstep. Do you even know your geography?[/quote]

I do - are you familiar with the concept of a regional balance of power and Iran’s ambitions to be a regional hegemon?

[quote]lixy wrote:
Iran doesn’t benefit from a destabilized Iraq. They stand to gain a lot from a democratic Iraq. As long as chaos reigns over there, the MEK (just like Al-Qaeda) are the group benefiting from the lawlessness. A democratic Iraq is a natural ally of Tehran, and I don’t see how installing a Turkish-style military dictatorship is going to change that. Iran desperately needs trading partners and as long as Iraq is a failed state, the former suffers greatly.[/quote]

Iran does need trading partners, but to the extent that Iraq is more influenced by the Turks and remains a strong U.S. ally, Iraq won’t be one of them - though I’m sure there would be more black-market trading along the border.

[quote]lixy wrote:
Now that Saddam is gone, the American military need to demonize another state, and Iran fits the bill perfectly. Washington can now claim that they need to keep Iran in check because of Tehran threatens American freedom and democracy. We’ll have the same stories about how Iranians are connected to Al-Qaeda and 9/11, and how their WMDs are a threat to world peace. I heard it all before, and I wasn’t impressed the first time around.[/quote]

Luckily, no one was trying to impress you. To the extent the Iranians re-start their nuclear program, that will be a huge issue - though the Russians will likely be the deciding factor there.

31

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:

Here’s an article on McCain’s foreign policy:

Sloth wrote:
That made me even more neverous.[/quote]

How does this grab you:

As I’ve said, none of the candidates is going to pull out quickly.

32

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
We’ve complained plenty about Obama recently. I can’t see how any of the other candidates are any better. Here’s the real John McCain:

http://vietnamveteransagainstmccain.com/

I’ve got less than no confidence in his leadership either.

I am not a big fan of his but the first thing I saw on this website was:


John McCain:
The Manchurian Candidate connection

It is not worth spending anymore time looking at that crap.

Have you followed his Gang of Fourteen actions? He has a complete contempt of the American people. He’s an arrogant elitist.
[/quote]

He is a politician.

33

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
…

Actually, if Iraq were to really go to hell in a handbasket quickly, that would hurt McCain’s chances as well. Iran seems to comprehend this… BBC NEWS | Middle East | Iran 'behind Green Zone attack'

And they do that 10 months before the elections because…?

BostonBarrister wrote:
Because it’s far enough away that people will forget it by the election, but if they can destabilize Iraq the U.S. will look bad and McCain’s candidacy will suffer - and he’d the only candidate who has talked about making sure to finish the job in Iraq (though as I’ve said I don’t think either of the other candidates would really pull out right away - they’re just pandering to the base, as Obama’s fired FP advisor essentially said).

lixy wrote:
Make the US look bad? You are outstanding at that job on your own. Why would Iran bother?

More importantly, how’s providing the US with an excuse to stay in Iraq serving Tehran’s interests?

The U.S. leaving Iraq would leave an influence vacuum. Iran and Saudi Arabia and Turkey would all try to fill it, but Iran is in the catbird seat at the moment - provided the government is weak and that Iran can step in and help control the violence (very easy to do if it’s causing a lot of it). [/quote]

Iran, Saudi Arabia and Turkey are already doing all they can to influence Iraq, US presence notwithstanding.

Saudi Arabia is extremely worried (and understandably so) that they’ll have a Shi’a majority country next door. It has already caused rebellions of the oppressed Shi’a minority. Not to mention that the crushing majority of “foreign fighters” in Iraq are Saudis, and that they constitute the base of Al-Qaeda.

Turkey’s got more pressing things to worry about than influence Iraq. Ankara is largely hated in Iraq because of so many factors that listing them would take a long long time. The ones that spring to mind:

  • Staunch US ally (i.e: friend of the bastards who wrecked the place)
  • Periodic military incursions into Iraq.
  • Claims for the oil-rich province of Mosul.
  • Position towards Israel.
  • Siding against Iraq post GWI.

Iran, in comparison, has always been the nice kid on the block and the Iraqis know that. Baghdad and Tehran are natural allies and there’s just nothing anybody can do to stop that. Iran is the greatest winner of your country’s war of aggression against the Iraqi people.

[quote]lixy wrote:
In my opinion, it is the opposite of what you claim. Washington(let’s face it, Petraeus is just another Bushie) is making that claim to boost McCain’s chances.

This whole Iran is aiding Al-Qaeda is beyond ridiculous. It defies common sense. Iran has greatly benefited from the overthrow of Hussein, and they have no possible reason for providing the US with excuses to stay in Iraq. Not to mention that Ben Laden and co. would turn to attacking Tehran the minute they get a chance.

BostonBarrister wrote:
They’ve benefited as long as they don’t get a Turkish-influenced functional democracy - Middle-Eastern style or not - on their doorstep. That would be very bad for the mullahs - and they are fighting hard to stop it. The QUDS isn’t even a proxy force - that is Iranian military.

lixy wrote:
WTF? Iranians already have Turkey on their doorstep. Do you even know your geography?

I do - are you familiar with the concept of a regional balance of power and Iran’s ambitions to be a regional hegemon? [/quote]

Like it or not, Iran is a regional power over there. They are within their natural sphere of influence. But as I explain above, Turkey is not as popular among the Iraqi people as Iran is.

[quote]lixy wrote:
Iran doesn’t benefit from a destabilized Iraq. They stand to gain a lot from a democratic Iraq. As long as chaos reigns over there, the MEK (just like Al-Qaeda) are the group benefiting from the lawlessness. A democratic Iraq is a natural ally of Tehran, and I don’t see how installing a Turkish-style military dictatorship is going to change that. Iran desperately needs trading partners and as long as Iraq is a failed state, the former suffers greatly.

Iran does need trading partners, but to the extent that Iraq is more influenced by the Turks and remains a strong U.S. ally, Iraq won’t be one of them - though I’m sure there would be more black-market trading along the border. [/quote]

Ally implies a voluntary action. Iraq bends over at your will because it doesn’t have much choice, what with you shooting at them and putting your people in power.

[quote]lixy wrote:
Now that Saddam is gone, the American military need to demonize another state, and Iran fits the bill perfectly. Washington can now claim that they need to keep Iran in check because of Tehran threatens American freedom and democracy. We’ll have the same stories about how Iranians are connected to Al-Qaeda and 9/11, and how their WMDs are a threat to world peace. I heard it all before, and I wasn’t impressed the first time around.

Luckily, no one was trying to impress you. To the extent the Iranians re-start their nuclear program, that will be a huge issue - though the Russians will likely be the deciding factor there.[/quote]

Figure of speech, dear. Figure of speech.

Like I said, the biggest winner is Iran. With your overstretched military, domestic opposition to the president, declining economy and unvoluntary efforts to jack up oil prices, Washington now sounds like a muzzled dog. The White House made a severe strategic mistake by not accepting Khamenei’s 2003 offer. Now, there’s not much you can do with your hands tied in Iraq. But hey, at least Saddam can’t threaten the world with his fictitious Al-Qaeda acolytes and stocks of WMDs.

34

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Sloth wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:

Here’s an article on McCain’s foreign policy:

That made me even more neverous.

I wonder which of his lackies wrote that for him?[/quote]

I guess the same one who wrote this speech back in 2003:

http://www.cfr.org/publication/6502/us_situation_in_iraq_and_afghanistan.html

Or maybe McCain is just goon on foreign policy…

35

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
will to power wrote:
Sikkario wrote:
Hypothetically, what happens if Iran just invades Iraq?

I wouldn’t worry about it. Whether Iraq ends up democratic or not it will almost definitely be controlled by the Shia majority, who are allies of Iran.

I’ve read that Islam is on the decline in both countries, and especially in Iran. Iran is attempting to re-institute the death penalty for Muslim apostates because of the spread of Christianity. That law could have one of two effects: discouraging people from apostasizing, or spreading Christianity much more quickly. Given the inability of the Roman Empire to suppress the gospel through similar means, and China, I’m going to bet on the latter.

[/quote]

Personally, my view is that Iranians are moving towards back to being more secular, and Christianity is seen as a relatively acceptable outlet. It was inevitable, as they had become such a strongly religious society as a way of banding together against the Shah. I agree that passing those laws would just drive more people away from Islam.

I find it hard to believe Islam is on the decline in Iraq however, unless you’re speaking in absolute terms and you mean there are just less living Muslims there today. As I understand it the exodus of Christians is relatively greater than that of Muslims, and I doubt people are turning away from religion in the middle of a civil war.

36

[quote]will to power wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
will to power wrote:
Sikkario wrote:
Hypothetically, what happens if Iran just invades Iraq?

I wouldn’t worry about it. Whether Iraq ends up democratic or not it will almost definitely be controlled by the Shia majority, who are allies of Iran.

I’ve read that Islam is on the decline in both countries, and especially in Iran. Iran is attempting to re-institute the death penalty for Muslim apostates because of the spread of Christianity. That law could have one of two effects: discouraging people from apostasizing, or spreading Christianity much more quickly. Given the inability of the Roman Empire to suppress the gospel through similar means, and China, I’m going to bet on the latter.

Personally, my view is that Iranians are moving towards back to being more secular, and Christianity is seen as a relatively acceptable outlet. It was inevitable, as they had become such a strongly religious society as a way of banding together against the Shah. I agree that passing those laws would just drive more people away from Islam.

I find it hard to believe Islam is on the decline in Iraq however, unless you’re speaking in absolute terms and you mean there are just less living Muslims there today. As I understand it the exodus of Christians is relatively greater than that of Muslims, and I doubt people are turning away from religion in the middle of a civil war.
[/quote]

I was referring to this:http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/03/03/africa/youth.php

Many are leaving Islam in Egypt also. Jahiliyah’s creeping back in!

37

[quote]lixy wrote:
In my opinion, it is the opposite of what you claim. Washington(let’s face it, Petraeus is just another Bushie) is making that claim to boost McCain’s chances.

[/quote]

In military terms, there is a chain of command. The Commander In Chief relays orders to subordinates. Those subordinates carry them out. It’s a real effective way to accomplish goals.

To call Petraeus a Bushie is to show an elemental misunderstanding of how the military operates.

And as for a military man speaking about military affairs (like, how the war is progressing)… he is well within his theartre of understanding and may speak as an expert. This has no party affiliation. If people are dying, it’s war.

It just happens that McCain has views that coincide with Petraeus’ opinion. Surprised? McCain was military. How does this equate to an attempt at improving McCains’ electability?

38


The Real John McLane.

40

[quote]kroby wrote:
In military terms, there is a chain of command. The Commander In Chief relays orders to subordinates. Those subordinates carry them out. It’s a real effective way to accomplish goals.

To call Petraeus a Bushie is to show an elemental misunderstanding of how the military operates. [/quote]

Well, call me what you will, but when a general writes op-ed columns that echo point by point Bush’s position (which most Americans reject), I ask myself questions. He went on talk-shows and from what I’ve seen, he might as well have a “Bush is awesome” pin and campaign for the guy.

As for my “elemental misunderstanding of how the military operates”, I can quote legions of senior officers who believe the military is highly politicized and that the top commanders in Iraq are pretty much all loyal Bushies.

Nobody’s talking about “party affiliation”. The Democrats overwhelmingly supported the war on Iraq, so cut the crap already!

Petraeus keeps accusing Iran without a shred of evidence. You’re free to believe him, but I, for one, will adopt a healthy skepticism vis-a-vis the same trust-me-and-take-my-word-for-it intelligence that brought us the motherfscking war in the far place.

Let’s go back a bit. BB claimed that the Iranian leadership wishes to sabotage McCain’s candidacy by destabilizing the home of one of the largest Shia demographics outside of Iran. And to support that, he gives us the word of of that Petraeus dude. I then disagree, and say that Petraeus is willingly inflaming the situation with Iran - assuming that invading two of their neighboring countries and deploying a couple of giant warships a few miles from their shores isn’t enough. Why? To make Bush’s (and by extension McCain’s) position a little bit more tenable.

Tell me now, if Petraeus was disobeying the “commandier-in-chief”, how long do you think it’ll be before he gets sacked?