Based on a short video from one of McCain's debates, he talks about Energy and how Iraq is the contributor and reason we are in Iraq right now. Stating that it will help us from sending troops to the Middle East. Enjoy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0GWoxbMs1k
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Week # 5 Item # 5: Management Problems
Starting his speech about how the Iraq war was Mismanaged, he started with blaming former defense secretary Donald Rumsfield. Blaming the Iraq war going down the drain because of Donald Rumsfield not putting enough troops in Iraq.
Because of Rumsfield decision, it has taken more money. With additional troops in Iraq, Senator McCain sees that there can be a victory and support needed in Iraq.
This speech was done in South Carolina during the start of the Primaries. Focusing Senator McCain's thoughts towards retirees.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8ND0D280&show_article=1
Because of Rumsfield decision, it has taken more money. With additional troops in Iraq, Senator McCain sees that there can be a victory and support needed in Iraq.
This speech was done in South Carolina during the start of the Primaries. Focusing Senator McCain's thoughts towards retirees.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8ND0D280&show_article=1
Week # 5, Item # 4: "Small Politics"
Back in April when the presidential candidates had been confirmed, Senator John McCain had accused the democratic party of playing "small politics" when it came to the Iraq War.
Senator McCain had stated that if we withdraw from Iraq, and Middle East it can lead to another 9/11 attack because of the clumsiness of leaving so fast without change. Senator McCain had portrayed the two parties as the following: Democrats as acting out of political opportunism — and Republicans as acting on principle. Simply saying that democrats are using their ways to wait for the opportunities and Republicans go by what is happening now! (found in the debate over Iraq War)
The idea that Americans were the ones who entered Iraq, so Americans are the the main enemy so Americans are the target. So leaving without fixing things would leave a bad impression on America. McCain just wants to stop the war but fix the problems that Americans had started.
Senator McCain had stated that if we withdraw from Iraq, and Middle East it can lead to another 9/11 attack because of the clumsiness of leaving so fast without change. Senator McCain had portrayed the two parties as the following: Democrats as acting out of political opportunism — and Republicans as acting on principle. Simply saying that democrats are using their ways to wait for the opportunities and Republicans go by what is happening now! (found in the debate over Iraq War)
The idea that Americans were the ones who entered Iraq, so Americans are the the main enemy so Americans are the target. So leaving without fixing things would leave a bad impression on America. McCain just wants to stop the war but fix the problems that Americans had started.
Monday, October 27, 2008
Week #5, Item #3: McCain has no idea.
Fighting for a "Victory" in Iraq, is what Senator McCain is reaching for. During the 2008 elections it has take the media off the current, Iraq War and the toll of deaths in the Middle East, which leaves all the attention of the future. People are thinking that the problem between the U.S. and Nouri al-Maliki (who is the prime minister of Iraq) won’t be resolved until President Bush has left office.
The reason for that is because between the two countries they have been trying to negotiate on SOFA (status-of-forces agreement). Senator McCain wants to end the Iraq war with a Victory for both countries. But because of the Agreement Troops are to be taken out of Iraq by 2011 in anyway, which means it can be a victory or disaster.
Article found at: http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2008/10/27/wars/
The reason for that is because between the two countries they have been trying to negotiate on SOFA (status-of-forces agreement). Senator McCain wants to end the Iraq war with a Victory for both countries. But because of the Agreement Troops are to be taken out of Iraq by 2011 in anyway, which means it can be a victory or disaster.
Article found at: http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2008/10/27/wars/
Week #5, Item #2: Differences in Fighting Terrorism
Senator Obama and Senator McCain both have plans for the Iraq War but also have different thoughts about it as well.
Senator Obama who wants to withdraw 152,00 U.S. troops by 2011 which will give a disadvantage to al-Qaida, who he thinks is the group that is in charge of recruiting people. He then hopes to keep a small U.S. force in Iraq, that is going to target al-Qaida, then send 20,000 American Troops to fight al-Qaida and the Taliban in Afghanistan, which is a war that democrats think we should and need to win.
Senator McCain wants to send more troops to Afghanistan as well, while withdrawing from Iraq Little by little, naming it a "Failed State." Senator McCain doesn't have a permanent strategy but making counter-terrorism on Iraq, Iran, Pakistan and the Israeli-Palestinian problem.
Both have considering ways of solutions to the Iraq War, as well as different expectations.
article found at: http://www.kansascity.com/445/story/859966.html
Senator Obama who wants to withdraw 152,00 U.S. troops by 2011 which will give a disadvantage to al-Qaida, who he thinks is the group that is in charge of recruiting people. He then hopes to keep a small U.S. force in Iraq, that is going to target al-Qaida, then send 20,000 American Troops to fight al-Qaida and the Taliban in Afghanistan, which is a war that democrats think we should and need to win.
Senator McCain wants to send more troops to Afghanistan as well, while withdrawing from Iraq Little by little, naming it a "Failed State." Senator McCain doesn't have a permanent strategy but making counter-terrorism on Iraq, Iran, Pakistan and the Israeli-Palestinian problem.
Both have considering ways of solutions to the Iraq War, as well as different expectations.
article found at: http://www.kansascity.com/445/story/859966.html
Week #5, Item #1: McCain policies "Dangerously Wrong"
Days away from the first presidential debate Senator Biden had accused McCain that his policies on Iraq were "dangerously wrong." Senator Obama has frequently said that McCain said that the Bush Administration is not doing the right thing when it comes to the Iraq War. Senator Obama who has been constantly blaming President Bush in his speeches instead of Senator McCain wanted to protect the Middle East including the American security.
Senator Biden had disagreed with Senator McCain's War decision stating that the Commander-in-Chief can't be someone who is divorced from reality, saying that the things he is saying isn't practical. Blaming both President Bush and Senator McCain of only caring about the war in Iraq.
Senator Biden says that IF we had another terrorist attack, then it probably wouldn't come from Iraq, but from Afghanistan/Pakistan Border.
After all this commotion about Senator McCain's wrong, Senator Biden had actually voted in 2002 for Senator McCain's proposal to authorize the Iraq War and Iraq Weapon program.
Article found at: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/24/biden-mccains-iraq-terrorism-stance-dangerously-wrong/?scp=4&sq=McCain%20Iraq%20War&st=cse
Senator Biden had disagreed with Senator McCain's War decision stating that the Commander-in-Chief can't be someone who is divorced from reality, saying that the things he is saying isn't practical. Blaming both President Bush and Senator McCain of only caring about the war in Iraq.
Senator Biden says that IF we had another terrorist attack, then it probably wouldn't come from Iraq, but from Afghanistan/Pakistan Border.
After all this commotion about Senator McCain's wrong, Senator Biden had actually voted in 2002 for Senator McCain's proposal to authorize the Iraq War and Iraq Weapon program.
Article found at: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/24/biden-mccains-iraq-terrorism-stance-dangerously-wrong/?scp=4&sq=McCain%20Iraq%20War&st=cse
Saturday, October 25, 2008
Week #4, Item #4: New York Times Endorses Obama
Barack Obama is the best choice for the next American president, the New York Times editorial board announced on Friday.
In a three page article detailing point-by-point the reasons for their endorsement, the board declared that “Mr. Obama has met challenge after challenge, growing as a leader and putting real flesh on his early promises of hope and change. He has shown a cool head and sound judgment. We believe he has the will and the ability to forge the broad political consensus that is essential to finding solutions to this nation’s problems.”
In contrast, John McCain was decided to be nothing more than a partisan, Bush-loving zealot whose good judgment in his career in the senate has long since been overshadowed by his poor decisions over the course of the campaign.
On the list of reasons for the selection was Obama’s early and continued disapproval of the war in Iraq, and his plan for ending it in an efficient and responsible manner. McCain has, as the Times pointed out, no real plan for exiting the country. This will not only extend a long and costly war, it puts the already strained US operations in Afghanistan at greater risk of failure.
Though the board admits that relatively inexperienced Obama would have a “learning curve” on foreign policy, they praised his choice of running mates. Joe Biden has plenty of expertise in this area.
Beyond that, the New York Times emphasized that Obama would present the new face of America to the world. Not only would he be the first African American president, his new ideas and worldview are a life-saving breath of fresh air after eight smothering years under Bush.
Read the Endorsement:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/opinion/24fri1.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&sq=obama%20iraq&st=cse&scp=2
In a three page article detailing point-by-point the reasons for their endorsement, the board declared that “Mr. Obama has met challenge after challenge, growing as a leader and putting real flesh on his early promises of hope and change. He has shown a cool head and sound judgment. We believe he has the will and the ability to forge the broad political consensus that is essential to finding solutions to this nation’s problems.”
In contrast, John McCain was decided to be nothing more than a partisan, Bush-loving zealot whose good judgment in his career in the senate has long since been overshadowed by his poor decisions over the course of the campaign.
On the list of reasons for the selection was Obama’s early and continued disapproval of the war in Iraq, and his plan for ending it in an efficient and responsible manner. McCain has, as the Times pointed out, no real plan for exiting the country. This will not only extend a long and costly war, it puts the already strained US operations in Afghanistan at greater risk of failure.
Though the board admits that relatively inexperienced Obama would have a “learning curve” on foreign policy, they praised his choice of running mates. Joe Biden has plenty of expertise in this area.
Beyond that, the New York Times emphasized that Obama would present the new face of America to the world. Not only would he be the first African American president, his new ideas and worldview are a life-saving breath of fresh air after eight smothering years under Bush.
Read the Endorsement:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/opinion/24fri1.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&sq=obama%20iraq&st=cse&scp=2
Week #4, Item #3: Time is Running Out on UN Security Council Resolution
With the December 31 deadline on the UN Security Council resolution authorizing US led military force looming ever nearer, diplomatic officials have begun to stress the need for the Iraqi government to decide on a game plan.
Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen recently warned reporters that Iraqi security forces will not be ready to provide for their own security by the end of this year. The admiral added that, while he respected the need for officials to debate the issue, it is imperative that a new Security pact be approved by that time.
Similarly, Foreign Policy has declared that the US must make it clear that “the era of unconditional support is over.” The journal reported last August that, though levels of physical violence have dropped, any gains remain shaky with so many unresolved tensions between the country’s various ethnic and religious groups.
With that in mind, it seems particularly important that the powers that be set boundaries (or rather, timelines) and focus on a diplomatic, collaborative approach to foreign relations with Iraq. Liberal perspective, anyone?
NY Times Quotes Mullen on Dec. 31 deadline:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/22/world/middleeast/22military.html?scp=5&sq=iraq&st=cse
FP Evaluates Tensions in Iraq:
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=4454&page=1
Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen recently warned reporters that Iraqi security forces will not be ready to provide for their own security by the end of this year. The admiral added that, while he respected the need for officials to debate the issue, it is imperative that a new Security pact be approved by that time.
Similarly, Foreign Policy has declared that the US must make it clear that “the era of unconditional support is over.” The journal reported last August that, though levels of physical violence have dropped, any gains remain shaky with so many unresolved tensions between the country’s various ethnic and religious groups.
With that in mind, it seems particularly important that the powers that be set boundaries (or rather, timelines) and focus on a diplomatic, collaborative approach to foreign relations with Iraq. Liberal perspective, anyone?
NY Times Quotes Mullen on Dec. 31 deadline:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/22/world/middleeast/22military.html?scp=5&sq=iraq&st=cse
FP Evaluates Tensions in Iraq:
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=4454&page=1
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Week #4 Item #1: Colin Powell endorese Obama not McCain
Colin Powell, who was the Secretary of State under President Bush first term, says in one of his interviews with “Meet the Press” that his thoughts are leaning more to Obama. Now Colin Powell is a republican you would think he would have sided with Senator McCain. The reason why for this is because, he sees the republican’s become narrower, especially dealing with the Iraq War. Colin Powell sees that Senator Obama would do a good job at fixing what was already done to the rest of the world, ‘hint, hint’ Iraq War.
I see that, it’s the opinion of Colin Powell on what he see is getting narrower, but by Senator Obama’s thoughts it seems that Colin Powell is against the war as well that was started when he was in office. Funny, how you can be involved in the start of the war and know looking at a perspective that is not for war.
The years of war must of change his views on war, which could change of course. What I got is that Colin Powell is probably tired of war for it’s already been almost 5 years and probably a good stop point for the Iraq War.
Article found at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/20/us/politics/20powell.html?scp=5&sq=McCain%20Iraq%20War&st=cse
I see that, it’s the opinion of Colin Powell on what he see is getting narrower, but by Senator Obama’s thoughts it seems that Colin Powell is against the war as well that was started when he was in office. Funny, how you can be involved in the start of the war and know looking at a perspective that is not for war.
The years of war must of change his views on war, which could change of course. What I got is that Colin Powell is probably tired of war for it’s already been almost 5 years and probably a good stop point for the Iraq War.
Article found at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/20/us/politics/20powell.html?scp=5&sq=McCain%20Iraq%20War&st=cse
Week #4, Item #2: Define "Victory"
The more I hear John McCain passionately stress the importance of success in Iraq, of victory, of leaving with honor, the more I wonder what exactly this mythical triumph, in his mind, will look like.
Seriously. I would like to hear, in specific terms, what we are waiting for.
Is it a perfectly functioning democracy? A peaceful and accepting society? Utopia? Because the US has had over 200 years, and whether we even have any of those things is questionable at best.
Maybe the Senator from Arizona expects to see the end of all terrorism. The total annhilation of Islamic Extremism. I would call this optimistic, if violence weren’t his primary means of achieving these goals. With that in mind, all I can say is that particular outcome is doubtful. And when I say “doubtful” what I mean is “impossible.”
So what is it? Cheaper oil? The destruction of Iran? American hegemony? How will the rest of us know when the Mission has been Accomplished? And don’t expect me to believe it just because it’s written on a banner somewhere in the Persian Gulf—I’ve heard that one before.
I’m not sure if we have any honor left in the Middle East, but I’m fairly certain that continually trying to bully other countries into doing things are way is not the way to preserve it.
Seriously. I would like to hear, in specific terms, what we are waiting for.
Is it a perfectly functioning democracy? A peaceful and accepting society? Utopia? Because the US has had over 200 years, and whether we even have any of those things is questionable at best.
Maybe the Senator from Arizona expects to see the end of all terrorism. The total annhilation of Islamic Extremism. I would call this optimistic, if violence weren’t his primary means of achieving these goals. With that in mind, all I can say is that particular outcome is doubtful. And when I say “doubtful” what I mean is “impossible.”
So what is it? Cheaper oil? The destruction of Iran? American hegemony? How will the rest of us know when the Mission has been Accomplished? And don’t expect me to believe it just because it’s written on a banner somewhere in the Persian Gulf—I’ve heard that one before.
I’m not sure if we have any honor left in the Middle East, but I’m fairly certain that continually trying to bully other countries into doing things are way is not the way to preserve it.
Week #4, Item #1: New Draft of Iraqi Security Pact
A new draft of a Security Pact, meant to regulate the conduct of American forces in Iraq, is now under review by negotiators. With the US election less than two weeks away, however, I can't help but wonder how any tentative agreement might be affected by a new president.
The long-awaited revision includes a timeline for withdrawal, that would have US troops out of major urban areas by this summer, and out of the country by 2011. It is unclear whether this withdrawal would be contingent on ground conditions in Iraq.
The draft also clarifies whether or not American forces are subject Iraqi law. Under this most recent edition, troops are exempt from the country's policies only while performing military operations, not while they are off duty.
Before it is approved, the draft must be approved by the Political Council for National Security, the cabinet, and parliament.
Regardless of whether the pact is approved by Iraqi officials, the timeline may be contested by the new president come November 4. In particular, Obama's plan has US troops out of Iraq by 2010, a year earlier than the deadline in the new Security Pact draft.
In any event, it is far more likely that Senator Obama will be willing to have an open and, yes, unconditional discussion with Iraqi officials about the differences between the two plans. The only thing that can be counted upon from the McCain camp is "straight-talk" and an irrational commitment to "victory"-- not matter how long it takes.
Read more about the Security Pact:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/16/world/middleeast/16iraq.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=iraq&st=cse&oref=slogin
The long-awaited revision includes a timeline for withdrawal, that would have US troops out of major urban areas by this summer, and out of the country by 2011. It is unclear whether this withdrawal would be contingent on ground conditions in Iraq.
The draft also clarifies whether or not American forces are subject Iraqi law. Under this most recent edition, troops are exempt from the country's policies only while performing military operations, not while they are off duty.
Before it is approved, the draft must be approved by the Political Council for National Security, the cabinet, and parliament.
Regardless of whether the pact is approved by Iraqi officials, the timeline may be contested by the new president come November 4. In particular, Obama's plan has US troops out of Iraq by 2010, a year earlier than the deadline in the new Security Pact draft.
In any event, it is far more likely that Senator Obama will be willing to have an open and, yes, unconditional discussion with Iraqi officials about the differences between the two plans. The only thing that can be counted upon from the McCain camp is "straight-talk" and an irrational commitment to "victory"-- not matter how long it takes.
Read more about the Security Pact:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/16/world/middleeast/16iraq.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=iraq&st=cse&oref=slogin
Monday, October 20, 2008
Week #3, Item #4: Powell Endorses Obama
Colin Powell’s recent endorsement of Barack Obama for is, as Republican strategist Alex Castellanos, “a glass of warm milk and a cookie for those who can’t sleep worrying about the lack of experience of a President Obama.”
Powell, a Republican who served as Secretary of State during the Gulf War, strongly supported Obama’s campaign on Meet the Press, in spite of a 25-year friendship with John McCain.
The fact that Powell is also a retired Army general reflects well upon Obama’s military policies, and he directly referenced concerns about his lack of experience in his endorsement. The former secretary stated he had approached Senator Obama about the issue over the course of the campaign. The endorsement alone implies that Powell has overcome any fears he may have had.
Powell also pointed out that Obama has both style and substance, further showing he sees the candidate as highly capable and ready fro the presidency.
In his endorsement, Powell also addressed a recent slew of Obama-bashing inaccurately stating that the senator is Muslim. While Powell did correct the statement (Obama is a Christian), he felt it was more important to correct the ideology behind it—that is, that a Muslim president is somehow un-American, a threat.
“Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer is no. That’s not America,” Powell said.
To be honest, it is beyond refreshing to hear anyone in politics being the voice of reason on this issue. Democrat or Republican, many representatives on both sides of the fence have been far too cowardly to stand up and say that Islam is not a threat to the United States.
Ultimately, Powell challenged voters to select the candidate for president that is most needed right now.
“I’ve come to the conclusion that because of his ability to inspire, because of the inclusive nature of his campaign, because he is reaching out all across America… [Obama] has met the standard of being a successful President, being an exceptional President,” Powell proclaimed.
Watch Powell's Endorsement:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/27265490#27265490
Powell, a Republican who served as Secretary of State during the Gulf War, strongly supported Obama’s campaign on Meet the Press, in spite of a 25-year friendship with John McCain.
The fact that Powell is also a retired Army general reflects well upon Obama’s military policies, and he directly referenced concerns about his lack of experience in his endorsement. The former secretary stated he had approached Senator Obama about the issue over the course of the campaign. The endorsement alone implies that Powell has overcome any fears he may have had.
Powell also pointed out that Obama has both style and substance, further showing he sees the candidate as highly capable and ready fro the presidency.
In his endorsement, Powell also addressed a recent slew of Obama-bashing inaccurately stating that the senator is Muslim. While Powell did correct the statement (Obama is a Christian), he felt it was more important to correct the ideology behind it—that is, that a Muslim president is somehow un-American, a threat.
“Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer is no. That’s not America,” Powell said.
To be honest, it is beyond refreshing to hear anyone in politics being the voice of reason on this issue. Democrat or Republican, many representatives on both sides of the fence have been far too cowardly to stand up and say that Islam is not a threat to the United States.
Ultimately, Powell challenged voters to select the candidate for president that is most needed right now.
“I’ve come to the conclusion that because of his ability to inspire, because of the inclusive nature of his campaign, because he is reaching out all across America… [Obama] has met the standard of being a successful President, being an exceptional President,” Powell proclaimed.
Watch Powell's Endorsement:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/27265490#27265490
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Week #3 Item #1 Iraq War for Oil
While stating his plans on energy Senator McCain had added in his speech that, Americans rely on foreign oil. Saying or suggesting that we are depending on Iraq for our oil.
After answering that a Military Veteran had asked about the political ads about Senator McCain wanting to stay in Iraq for 100 years. Senator McCain had simply answered that it was a false ad. And had added that he was different from Senator Obama, and Senator Clinton when it comes to the Iraq War.
Basically Iraq War was to get the target of Saddam Hussein, helping the people of Iraq.
Link to articles: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/05/02/974014.aspx
After answering that a Military Veteran had asked about the political ads about Senator McCain wanting to stay in Iraq for 100 years. Senator McCain had simply answered that it was a false ad. And had added that he was different from Senator Obama, and Senator Clinton when it comes to the Iraq War.
Basically Iraq War was to get the target of Saddam Hussein, helping the people of Iraq.
Link to articles: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/05/02/974014.aspx
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Week #3, Item #3: Obama Plan Gets Support… From Republicans
Senator Gordon H. Smith of Oregon is trying something new in his race for reelection this year: reaching for the coattails… of the opposing party.
Smith is a Republican but, at least in terms of foreign policy, he’s trying to out-democrat his Democratic challenger, Jeff Merkley. Rather than simply distancing himself from the Republican party, the senator has released ads linking himself to prominent Democrats, including John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, and Barack Obama.
Though critics have called attention to Smith’s early (and repeated) support of the Iraq War, Smith himself has been emphasizing his more recent disapproval of the conflict. In particular, he has attempted to draw parallels between himself and Obama.
You know things are looking bad for the GOP when its members start lining up next to Ted Kennedy. In any event, maybe the liberal perspective is catching on after all…
More on Faux-Republican Smith:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/15/us/politics/15oregon.html?scp=2&sq=obama%20iraq&st=cse
Smith is a Republican but, at least in terms of foreign policy, he’s trying to out-democrat his Democratic challenger, Jeff Merkley. Rather than simply distancing himself from the Republican party, the senator has released ads linking himself to prominent Democrats, including John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, and Barack Obama.
Though critics have called attention to Smith’s early (and repeated) support of the Iraq War, Smith himself has been emphasizing his more recent disapproval of the conflict. In particular, he has attempted to draw parallels between himself and Obama.
You know things are looking bad for the GOP when its members start lining up next to Ted Kennedy. In any event, maybe the liberal perspective is catching on after all…
More on Faux-Republican Smith:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/15/us/politics/15oregon.html?scp=2&sq=obama%20iraq&st=cse
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Week #3, Item #2: The Second Presidential Debate
In their Second Presidential Debate, Senators John McCain and Barack Obama were once again asked to articulate their positions on military action as a vehicle for political change. While both candidates made safe, predictable statements about moral obligations and national security, they conversation quickly swung back to the Iraq War.
McCain once again explained the disastrous potential of changing course in Iraq, emphasizing that without a strong military presence in the country it will immediately fall into the hands of terrorists (Iran, Al-Qaeda—what’s the difference?) and lead us to a longer, more complex conflict in the future.
Obama, on the other hand, maintained that beginning the war in Iraq only weakened operations in Afghanistan, distracting the United States from its original goal and allowing Osama bin Laden to escape.
“That’s why I think it’s so important for us to reverse course, because [Afghanistan is] the central front on terrorism… the war against terrorism began in that region and that’s where it will end,” the democratic nominee told audience members.
The difference here is not only in military strategy, but personal ideology. McCain and Obama will never see eye-to-eye on this topic because they have two different perceptions of where the threat to the United States is coming from.
Obama has focused on pursuing members of Al-Qaeda, the group found responsible for the 9/11 attacks. McCain seems more concerned about Islamic Extremism—making any (and maybe every) Muslim country a potential attacker.
Once again we see the difference between the liberal and realist perspectives. Obama sees a system of states that, if approached diplomatically, can be peaceful and cooperative. McCain sees a world full of potential enemies competing for power that can never really be trusted.
Watch the Second Presidential Debate:
http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/president/debates/second-presidential-debate.html?scp=2&sq=second%20debate%20view&st=cse
McCain once again explained the disastrous potential of changing course in Iraq, emphasizing that without a strong military presence in the country it will immediately fall into the hands of terrorists (Iran, Al-Qaeda—what’s the difference?) and lead us to a longer, more complex conflict in the future.
Obama, on the other hand, maintained that beginning the war in Iraq only weakened operations in Afghanistan, distracting the United States from its original goal and allowing Osama bin Laden to escape.
“That’s why I think it’s so important for us to reverse course, because [Afghanistan is] the central front on terrorism… the war against terrorism began in that region and that’s where it will end,” the democratic nominee told audience members.
The difference here is not only in military strategy, but personal ideology. McCain and Obama will never see eye-to-eye on this topic because they have two different perceptions of where the threat to the United States is coming from.
Obama has focused on pursuing members of Al-Qaeda, the group found responsible for the 9/11 attacks. McCain seems more concerned about Islamic Extremism—making any (and maybe every) Muslim country a potential attacker.
Once again we see the difference between the liberal and realist perspectives. Obama sees a system of states that, if approached diplomatically, can be peaceful and cooperative. McCain sees a world full of potential enemies competing for power that can never really be trusted.
Watch the Second Presidential Debate:
http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/president/debates/second-presidential-debate.html?scp=2&sq=second%20debate%20view&st=cse
Sunday, October 12, 2008
Week #3, Item #1: McCain and “Al Qaeda”
In the Article, “McCain, Iraq War and the Threat “Al Qaeda” it is written about the specific term that Senator McCain uses to describe the Iraq War. During this time of War in Iraq, Senator John McCain has used the term “Al Qaeda”. Using this term to define what we were fighting for. Senator Obama, is often saying that the best way, is to get troops out of Iraq, while Senator McCain says if they were took out of Iraq, Al Qaeda would win, and rule once again.
Now the real meaning of “Al Qaeda” is a terrorist group of Sunni Muslims, leaded by Osama Bin Laden, who were the ones being blamed for the 911 Bombings, and who are not the Iraqi’s in Iraq. A terrorism and counterinsurgency expert, Bruce Hoffman explained that the “Al Qaeda that Senator McCain is talking about is the “Al Qaeda” in Iraq. So technically he uses the right term.
Many people especially disagree with Senator McCain for they see the Iraq war being fought against Iraqi’s not “Al Qaeda”. Senator McCain has recently added to his talks about the Iraq war being influenced by the Iranians. Whoever or whatever is a final decision on the Iraq War, may it be a good decision, and help with not having future threats.
“McCain, Iraq War and the Threat “Al Qaeda”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/19/us/politics/19threat.html?pagewanted=2&sq=McCain%20Iraq%20War&st=cse&scp=1
Now the real meaning of “Al Qaeda” is a terrorist group of Sunni Muslims, leaded by Osama Bin Laden, who were the ones being blamed for the 911 Bombings, and who are not the Iraqi’s in Iraq. A terrorism and counterinsurgency expert, Bruce Hoffman explained that the “Al Qaeda that Senator McCain is talking about is the “Al Qaeda” in Iraq. So technically he uses the right term.
Many people especially disagree with Senator McCain for they see the Iraq war being fought against Iraqi’s not “Al Qaeda”. Senator McCain has recently added to his talks about the Iraq war being influenced by the Iranians. Whoever or whatever is a final decision on the Iraq War, may it be a good decision, and help with not having future threats.
“McCain, Iraq War and the Threat “Al Qaeda”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/19/us/politics/19threat.html?pagewanted=2&sq=McCain%20Iraq%20War&st=cse&scp=1
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Week #2, Item #2: Obama Increases Focus on Plans for Iraq
Since their rather incomplete discussion about the Iraq War in the first Presidential Debate last month, candidates Barack Obama and John McCain have increased focus on their vastly different plans for Iraq. In recent interviews both have given specifics on the course they feel the war should take and why.
Both candidates plan to reduce the number of troops in Iraq over the course of their first term. However, Senator Obama plans to remove brigades far more quickly than Senator McCain.
Obama has proposed removing one or two brigades from Iraq a month over a 16 month period. He has retained the right to pause the troop withdrawal if sectarian violence increases in this period, and plans to keep a residual military force in Iraq after the 16 months is up. This force would continue to pursue Al-Qaeda forces and potentially train Iraqi troops.
This plan, according to Obama, would force Iraqi officials to put aside their differences and take responsibility for their own security. Additionally, it would free resources (such as troops and money) to be redirected to the conflict in Afghanistan and domestic issues.
In contrast, McCain’s plan hopes to have the majority of US troops out of Iraq by 2013—but allows generals in Iraq almost total control over the situation.
The Obama campaign has argued that the constant US military presence in Iraq has done little to prompt the Iraqi government to take on its own problems, and so suggests a (you guessed it) change of course. Furthermore, the democrats argue, keeping troops in the country at such high levels for such a long time would only put further strain on a military stretched thin.
Regardless of the final plan for Iraq, the stakes in Iraq, and for the next US President, are high.
Compare and Contrast Iraq War Plans:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/06/us/politics/06elected.html
Both candidates plan to reduce the number of troops in Iraq over the course of their first term. However, Senator Obama plans to remove brigades far more quickly than Senator McCain.
Obama has proposed removing one or two brigades from Iraq a month over a 16 month period. He has retained the right to pause the troop withdrawal if sectarian violence increases in this period, and plans to keep a residual military force in Iraq after the 16 months is up. This force would continue to pursue Al-Qaeda forces and potentially train Iraqi troops.
This plan, according to Obama, would force Iraqi officials to put aside their differences and take responsibility for their own security. Additionally, it would free resources (such as troops and money) to be redirected to the conflict in Afghanistan and domestic issues.
In contrast, McCain’s plan hopes to have the majority of US troops out of Iraq by 2013—but allows generals in Iraq almost total control over the situation.
The Obama campaign has argued that the constant US military presence in Iraq has done little to prompt the Iraqi government to take on its own problems, and so suggests a (you guessed it) change of course. Furthermore, the democrats argue, keeping troops in the country at such high levels for such a long time would only put further strain on a military stretched thin.
Regardless of the final plan for Iraq, the stakes in Iraq, and for the next US President, are high.
Compare and Contrast Iraq War Plans:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/06/us/politics/06elected.html
Week #2, Item #1: The Vice Presidential Debate
With the second Presidential debate on the horizon, both tickets have increased their focus on what Senator Joe Biden referred to as a “fundamental difference” between the two campaigns: the Iraq War. The issue was a key topic in last week’s Vice Presidential Debate.
Biden, the nominee for the Democratic ticket, and Republican Governor Sarah Palin firmly opposed each other as they began discussing foreign policy. While Palin continued to praise the surge strategy and great American generals, and repeatedly emphasized the need to win in Iraq, Biden stressed Obama’s exit strategy, the importance of transferring responsibility to Iraqi officials and ending the conflict.
“For John McCain there is no end in sight... We will end this war,” Biden told voters.
Overall, the candidates’ discussion of Iraq showed more than a difference of opinion on military strategy. It illustrated a rift between the basic philosophies of the two campaigns.
While the McCain campaign has told us over and over that we must win, we must be victorious (in other words, we must prove US dominance over Iraq or risk looking weak), the Obama campaign is ready to shift power to another party. The Democratic ticket’s strategy is looking for a way to cooperate with other states, rather than desperately clutching and the chance to prove superiority.
The bottom line? Obama and Biden don’t see cooperation as a loss of political power—while Palin and McCain can’t imagine a way to solve the conflict without proving the United States is the biggest, toughest country around. We’ll never evolve beyond this cave-man logic unless we have a president who believes it’s possible, even if that means waving the “white flag of surrender.”
Watch the VP Debate:
http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/president/debates/vice-presidential-debate.html
Biden, the nominee for the Democratic ticket, and Republican Governor Sarah Palin firmly opposed each other as they began discussing foreign policy. While Palin continued to praise the surge strategy and great American generals, and repeatedly emphasized the need to win in Iraq, Biden stressed Obama’s exit strategy, the importance of transferring responsibility to Iraqi officials and ending the conflict.
“For John McCain there is no end in sight... We will end this war,” Biden told voters.
Overall, the candidates’ discussion of Iraq showed more than a difference of opinion on military strategy. It illustrated a rift between the basic philosophies of the two campaigns.
While the McCain campaign has told us over and over that we must win, we must be victorious (in other words, we must prove US dominance over Iraq or risk looking weak), the Obama campaign is ready to shift power to another party. The Democratic ticket’s strategy is looking for a way to cooperate with other states, rather than desperately clutching and the chance to prove superiority.
The bottom line? Obama and Biden don’t see cooperation as a loss of political power—while Palin and McCain can’t imagine a way to solve the conflict without proving the United States is the biggest, toughest country around. We’ll never evolve beyond this cave-man logic unless we have a president who believes it’s possible, even if that means waving the “white flag of surrender.”
Watch the VP Debate:
http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/president/debates/vice-presidential-debate.html
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Week #1, Item #1: McCain's Plan and Accomplishments
The year of 2008, marked as one of the most important year. It is marking the fifth year of the Iraq War, and not to forget the Presidential Elections. Not only is this Election important and big but it’s going to be the Presidential elections with the Iraq War.
John McCain who is a veteran and prisoner of War knows the truth of war. Having a Military background he believes that the Iraq War will end in the year of 2013, five years from now. He believes that troops shouldn't be pulled out of the war but kept in Iraq until they are confident that the Iraqi's can stand on their own. Currently the Senator of Arizona also hopes to help the Iraqi people with their government, economy, and etc.
John McCain wants to level with Americans as well. Making sure that the ones who have been or are spouses of people who have gone to the Iraq War the time. Time to express the way they felt about the war. All in one he wants to help Iraq to become successful and become a peaceful country while paying attention to the ones who served in the War.
“Strategy for Victory in Iraq”
http://johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues
John McCain who is a veteran and prisoner of War knows the truth of war. Having a Military background he believes that the Iraq War will end in the year of 2013, five years from now. He believes that troops shouldn't be pulled out of the war but kept in Iraq until they are confident that the Iraqi's can stand on their own. Currently the Senator of Arizona also hopes to help the Iraqi people with their government, economy, and etc.
John McCain wants to level with Americans as well. Making sure that the ones who have been or are spouses of people who have gone to the Iraq War the time. Time to express the way they felt about the war. All in one he wants to help Iraq to become successful and become a peaceful country while paying attention to the ones who served in the War.
“Strategy for Victory in Iraq”
http://johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues
Monday, September 29, 2008
Week #1, Item #1: Obama's Plan for Iraq
It can come as no surprise that Barack Obama is the liberal candidate for the presidency—and his approach to foreign policy is no exception. In fact, the term goes beyond the traditional divide between left and right and reflects the difference between the realist and liberal perspectives of international relations. A strong example of this is Obama’s plan for the war in Iraq, published in The New York Times this July.
In contrast to John McCain’s realist approach to the conflict in Iraq, Obama’s plan emphasizes negotiations and compromise. Diplomacy is a key aspect of the liberal perspective, as it advocates for the common good without creating competition for power between states. The realist perspective, on the other hand, focuses on material power differences between states. As such, physical conflict between nations plays a large role in realist strategy.
Even within the realist school of thought, the plan takes a defensive tact. Obama clearly did not support a preemptive war, and hoped instead to concentrate on the action in Afghanistan. This approach would be more likely to maintain an equilibrium of power between states, rather than seek to increase the power of the US.
"My Plan for Iraq" by Barack Obama:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/14/opinion/14obama.html?scp=1&sq=obama%20iraq%20plan&st=cse
In contrast to John McCain’s realist approach to the conflict in Iraq, Obama’s plan emphasizes negotiations and compromise. Diplomacy is a key aspect of the liberal perspective, as it advocates for the common good without creating competition for power between states. The realist perspective, on the other hand, focuses on material power differences between states. As such, physical conflict between nations plays a large role in realist strategy.
Even within the realist school of thought, the plan takes a defensive tact. Obama clearly did not support a preemptive war, and hoped instead to concentrate on the action in Afghanistan. This approach would be more likely to maintain an equilibrium of power between states, rather than seek to increase the power of the US.
"My Plan for Iraq" by Barack Obama:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/14/opinion/14obama.html?scp=1&sq=obama%20iraq%20plan&st=cse
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
