McCain predicts Iraq war over by 2013

[HAL 9000 96]

HUH?

If it was victory, according to the analogies of power, then all you have to do is drop a nuke or two in the Middle East. Problem solved ironically.

Anyway, this is running on empty on the latest excuse of several that have been shown rather easily to have been unrelated to anything postured in reality, save perhaps the truth that a lie is a lie and Americans are not stupid enough to swallow Bush's lies anymore.

In my opinion any withdrawal from Iraq will not be an overnight event, and Iraquis will have the power to either shape up their democracy or hand it back to the Baath Party as it was before the Illegal war even started. As we are shifting our focus from military occupation to diplomatic support to ally nation. Then again, that is just my opinion and perhaps Gary is completely right in thinking that Obama will do exactly as the Republicans say he will, beyond anything Obama has actually said, which again, is more political BS during a campaign cycle.

i don't recall germany being defeated by a nuke

Ask the Japanese.

obviously, but they were just one of 3 in that fiasco.

Yes. And the only ones to get acquainted with the Fat Man and the Little Boy.

[aidan80 9]

The Arizona senator said he believes that the United States will have a smaller military presence in Iraq that will not play a direct combat role, and he predicts that al Qaeda in Iraq will be defeated. Watch McCain say most troops will be home from Iraq by 2013 »

"By January 2013, America has welcomed home most of the servicemen and -women who have sacrificed terribly so that America might be secure in her freedom.

"The Iraq war has been won. Iraq is a functioning democracy, although still suffering from the lingering effects of decades of tyranny and centuries of sectarian tension," McCain said.

McCain is an idiot, what happened to Bush and "mission complete"?.. liars and crooks the pair of them just like nixon, only they haven't been caught yet..

[Heracles 417]

Ask the Japanese.

So you don't think saving approx 1 million American troops was justified in a world war. Then again probably not.

[HAL 9000 96]

Don't really know where you get your interpretation... but ironically speaking there are folks out there that only understand the language of might making right... and perhaps if they think as such then all they have to do is follow a more absolute course of action to solve their particular aversions to being diplomats before warhawks.

[Dr. A ♥ O 203]

It's intuitive nature to look at the leaders as the causes for war. However, while leaders are important there are many variables for the causes of war. Studying the causes of war helps scholars look for paths to peace and that is why all these wars and revolutions are brought up time and again. It's a very important process. War and revolution are often time interrelated. Take for example The Iran-Iraq war. Iraq wouldn't have attacked Iran if Saddam hadn't mispercieved that Iran was weak due to the recent revolution they had under gone for several years. Saddam also only wanted one piece of territory back and didn't want to capture the entire country but what he got was Iran's radicals mobilizing much more quickly and efficiantly then he expected. In the end it was great costs to both side with neither of them really winning. Edited May 20, 2008 by Olivia*

[HAL 9000 96]

It's intuitive nature to look at the leaders as the causes for war. However, while leaders are important there are many variables for the causes of war. Studying the causes of war helps scholars look for paths to peace and that is why all these wars and revolutions are brought up time and again. It's a very important process. War and revolution are often time interrelated. Take for example The Iran-Iraq war. Iraq wouldn't have attacked Iran if Saddam hadn't mispercieved that Iran was weak due to the recent revolution they had under gone for several years. Saddam also only wanted one piece of territory back and didn't want to capture the entire country but what he got was Iran's radicals mobilizing much more quickly and efficiantly then he expected. In the end it was great costs to both side with neither of them really winning.

Saddam couldn't win against Iraq... even with nearly inconditional satellite recon suplied by Washington. Go figure.

[Dr. A ♥ O 203]

It's intuitive nature to look at the leaders as the causes for war. However, while leaders are important there are many variables for the causes of war. Studying the causes of war helps scholars look for paths to peace and that is why all these wars and revolutions are brought up time and again. It's a very important process. War and revolution are often time interrelated. Take for example The Iran-Iraq war. Iraq wouldn't have attacked Iran if Saddam hadn't mispercieved that Iran was weak due to the recent revolution they had under gone for several years. Saddam also only wanted one piece of territory back and didn't want to capture the entire country but what he got was Iran's radicals mobilizing much more quickly and efficiantly then he expected. In the end it was great costs to both side with neither of them really winning.

Saddam couldn't win against Iraq... even with nearly inconditional satellite recon suplied by Washington. Go figure.

I think you're making a point about weapons but I'm unsure. The Iranian revolution to date is the largest revolution in history consisting of 8 million people. As far as revolutions go it was largely peaceful due to the fact the Shah of Iran couldn't kill them all. *Yawn-strech* (just waking up) It was this population of revolutionaries that Saddam greatly mispercieved when he decided to attack them. And it was during this war we had the Iran-Contra scandal. I'll have to get back to you on the weapons things after you clairfy what you mean. For now I'm going on a walk with my cousin this morning.

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

It's intuitive nature to look at the leaders as the causes for war. However, while leaders are important there are many variables for the causes of war. Studying the causes of war helps scholars look for paths to peace and that is why all these wars and revolutions are brought up time and again. It's a very important process. War and revolution are often time interrelated. Take for example The Iran-Iraq war. Iraq wouldn't have attacked Iran if Saddam hadn't mispercieved that Iran was weak due to the recent revolution they had under gone for several years. Saddam also only wanted one piece of territory back and didn't want to capture the entire country but what he got was Iran's radicals mobilizing much more quickly and efficiantly then he expected. In the end it was great costs to both side with neither of them really winning.

Saddam couldn't win against Iraq... even with nearly inconditional satellite recon suplied by Washington. Go figure.

what?

[HAL 9000 96]

To clarify-

It was no secret we supplied Saddam Hussein with aerial recon data so as to give him an advantage against the Iranians in the 80s. Not to mention sales of weaponry used against Iran and against its own population.

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

To clarify-

It was no secret we supplied Saddam Hussein with aerial recon data so as to give him an advantage against the Iranians in the 80s. Not to mention sales of weaponry used against Iran and against its own population.

oh for a second there i thought you were saying saddam was fighting iraq.

eta: a majority of saddam's equipment was soviet.

Edited May 20, 2008 by charlesandnessa

[Dr. A ♥ O 203]

To clarify-

It was no secret we supplied Saddam Hussein with aerial recon data so as to give him an advantage against the Iranians in the 80s. Not to mention sales of weaponry used against Iran and against its own population.

oh for a second there i thought you were saying saddam was fighting iraq.

eta: a majority of saddam's equipment was soviet.

To answer maviwaro I'll have to look further into it. I do know that the CIA was going behind the US gov't back to supply Iran with weapons during this period. With what you say it makes it look like what ever way we can make money we will. I can agree with Charles it is more known that there were more sales of Soviet weapons than from us.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

We shouldn't forget here some consideration of what actually precipitated the Iranian revolution. The roots to that conflict date further back than that - to foreign policies from the 50's which were just as botched and short-sighted as what's going on today.

[Dr. A ♥ O 203]

Now you're getting at something Number 6! However, the U.S. was just one variable in the ordeal. Another is modernization and inconsitancy of the carrot and stick applicaiton by the Shah of Iran. The Shah completely aggrivated his people because he did not provide them with an outlet to participate in the political process. His government served as a rubber stamp. He did allow some freedom with the peoples elected Prime Minister. The Prime Minister being a smart business man nationalized the oil refineries in Iran and offered the British 25% as well as job security. The British said, "We're not going to have that." Then they huffed and puffed and asked the US, "Can you do anything about it?" The US looking to expand their interests in oil went along with the British and did a show of force by sea. To which the Shah of Iran said, "See I told you so. Let me run the country." Largely it was the Shah of Iran that wasn't good for his people and wasted largers amounts of money on himself. I read somewhere his wife was collecting thousands of priceless paintings and just sitting them in the basement. Image is some of that money had gone to the people. The Shah of Iran also pissed off his whole country with his modernization. He bulldozed the Bazaaries for one and alienated the religious sect because they saw that conditions were getting worse with drug addicts and prostitutes and the religious sect wanted to cleanse their society. Once they came into power they did start a process to ethnically cleanse their society.

The failure of that revolution was overconfidence of the secularists and modernist Muslims, of liberals and leftists in their power and ability to control the revolution.

and

"Policies of the American government, which helped create an image of the Shah as American "puppet" with their high profile and the 1953 subversion of the government on his behalf, but helped trigger the revolution by pressuring the Shah to liberalize, and then finally may have heightened the radicalism of the revolution by failing to read its nature accurately (particularly the goals of Khomeini), or to clearly respond to it." Source were I snagged those last lines.

And here is an article of interest:

link

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The thinking seems to be similar to what was behind the support for Saddam - that dealing with a compliant dictator was somehow preferable to any sort of representative government. For one thing it costs less $ to do business with the former.

I can see the logic behind it - just not the morality.

[HAL 9000 96]

To clarify-

It was no secret we supplied Saddam Hussein with aerial recon data so as to give him an advantage against the Iranians in the 80s. Not to mention sales of weaponry used against Iran and against its own population.

oh for a second there i thought you were saying saddam was fighting iraq.

eta: a majority of saddam's equipment was soviet.

To answer maviwaro I'll have to look further into it. I do know that the CIA was going behind the US gov't back to supply Iran with weapons during this period. With what you say it makes it look like what ever way we can make money we will. I can agree with Charles it is more known that there were more sales of Soviet weapons than from us.

Of course, Charles is absolutely correct. In fact, Iraq was hardly involved in the Cold War aspect of left vs. right, as being more interested in asserting regional hegemony within a secular form of government. Much like we like to do but inside their own sphere of influence. They received some firepower from us but the majority was intelligence and logistical support to fight the Iranian Revolution, and the received heavy machinery from the USSR.

Iran benefited on the arms end of the Iran-Contra Scandal. But only on the down low if you know what I mean.