Quote from: AvocadoClock;1389780Why should I ever vote for that guy?
He would spend a 100 years in Iraq.

*puke

I didn't know he will be in office for 100 years.

Quote from: RomanClock;1389784I didn't know he will be in office for 100 years.

Are making an effort to be stupid? Seriously. And I know you know what I mean. That statement has come out of his own campaign. Do you want me to cite sources? You're only making yourself look like a jackass with your post.
 
I'm obviously commenting on his attitude about the war. He doesn't have any intention of ending anything.

And during those 4 years in office (God forbid he is re-elected) McCain could make obligations and set precedents tying us to Iraq like a ball and chain.

Quote from: AvocadoClock;1389842Are making an effort to be stupid? Seriously. And I know you know what I mean. That statement has come out of his own campaign. Do you want me to cite sources? You're only making yourself look like a jackass with your post.
 
I'm obviously commenting on his attitude about the war. He doesn't have any intention of ending anything.

And during those 4 years in office (God forbid he is re-elected) McCain could make obligations and set precedents tying us to Iraq like a ball and chain.

Yea, I know what he was saying, he was saying he will stay as long as it takes to get the Iraqis in good shape.

Quote from: RomanClock;1389844Yea, I know what he was saying, he was saying he will stay as long as it takes to get the Iraqis in good shape.

Which equals more wasted lives. More wasted billions of tax dollars.
And the hate of all the world.

Quote from: RomanClock;1389844Yea, I know what he was saying, he was saying he will stay as long as it takes to get the Iraqis in good shape.

In good shape? Many of us think we're only going to put them in worse shape by staying there. And we're certainly putting ourselves in worse shape by staying there. And again, we were never supposed to be there in the first place.

If you want to debate about Iraq go make an Iraq thread and I'll be there but lets stay on track and talk about the presidential candidates!

Quote from: RomanClock;1390552If you want to debate about Iraq go make an Iraq thread and I'll be there but lets stay on track and talk about the presidential candidates!

I don't agree with John McCain's stance on the war, therefore I will not be voting for him. It's a very decisive issue for me, and I don't see him having other qualities or up-sides that would make his position on the war acceptable in some kind of trade off. No matter how smart or great he might be at doing something else, it's simply impossible for me to ignore his stance because I view it as such a mistake. I would call it a deal breaker.

Quote from: AvocadoClock;1389842Are making an effort to be stupid? Seriously. And I know you know what I mean. That statement has come out of his own campaign. Do you want me to cite sources? You're only making yourself look like a jackass with your post.
 
I'm obviously commenting on his attitude about the war. He doesn't have any intention of ending anything.

And during those 4 years in office (God forbid he is re-elected) McCain could make obligations and set precedents tying us to Iraq like a ball and chain.

You seem to forget that it's ultimately the senate's responsibility to make precedents, and that that senate is now predominately democratic.

Quote from: The Hero of Winds;1390914You seem to forget that it's ultimately the senate's responsibility to make precedents, and that that senate is now predominately democratic.

And you seem to forget the definition of precedent.
Or you never knew what it meant to begin with.
Anybody in any office can set a precedent.

QuoteAn example that is used to justify similar occurrences at a later time

An act or instance that may be used as an example in dealing with subsequent similar instances.

An act in the past which may be used as an example to help decide the outcome of similar instances in the future; A decided case which is cited or used as an example to justify a judgment in a subsequent case; The previous version; Happening or taking place earlier in time; previous or preceding

I don't know who is teaching your government class, but that's laughably bad.

Quote from: RomanClock;1390552If you want to debate about Iraq go make an Iraq thread and I'll be there but lets stay on track and talk about the presidential candidates!

Iraq is one of the top issues on the table for the presidential election, and the policies of both candidates are more than likely going to be deciding factors.

Quote from: AvocadoClock;1390931And you seem to forget the definition of precedent.
Or you never knew what it meant to begin with.
Anybody in any office can set a precedent.

The President can't just set up precedents that have any legal standing. That's not his job. His job is to veto, enforce, and lead. When it comes down to it, it will be the senate's job pass down a precedent keeping us in Iraq for 100 years, and if it is unconstitutional, the Supreme Court can make a precedent saying it is unconstitutional.

Quote from: AbsintheClock;1390948Iraq is one of the top issues on the table for the presidential election, and the policies of both candidates are more than likely going to be deciding factors.

Ok, my reason for saying Iraq is better than before is now there isn't a dictator committing genocide on people he doesn't like. And we are implementing more technology in the region and created a democratic-ish government which I think is also a plus. You may think that what I've listed is negative but I guess thats you.

Also, since apparently you are taking McCain so literally as to think we will have tens of thousands of troops there for a hundred years is just silly. Its more like a permanent base like we have in other countries, they don't really affect the country in a dramatic way. It also gives us some leverage in the region, and its not imperialism, Bush is not running the country and other bases we have in other countries aren't taking over those countries either.

Quote from: RomanClock;1391723Also, since apparently you are taking McCain so literally as to think we will have tens of thousands of troops there for a hundred years is just silly.

It doesn't matter that he doesn't literally mean he will make sure we have troops stationed there for a century. The point is that he wants to be in there any further at all, and never in his term or terms will make any move to pull out, and will move even more troops to Iraq. That means potentially another decade of Iraqi warfare because as long as it's not 100 years it's just fine with you.

QuoteIts more like a permanent base like we have in other countries, they don't really affect the country in a dramatic way.

You're talking about an embassy, which means we're allied, not at war with. You're fucking delusional if you think that's what he means.

QuoteIt also gives us some leverage in the region

We are forcing power over the region. We should not be concerned with how much leverage we have over a middle eastern country, especially if we're using warfare to maintain that leverage.

Quoteits not imperialism

Yes it is.

Quoteand other bases we have in other countries aren't taking over those countries either.

We're not at war with those countries, and again you don't understand the difference between an embassy and a barracks. An embassy is a diplomatic relations bureau, not an army base, and it's purpose is not to house some military force in a nation constantly.

STRAWBERRYCLOCK
In reality, Barack Obama

Quote from: RomanClock;1391723Ok, my reason for saying Iraq is better than before is now there isn't a dictator committing genocide on people he doesn't like. And we are implementing more technology in the region and created a democratic-ish government which I think is also a plus. You may think that what I've listed is negative but I guess thats you.

Also, since apparently you are taking McCain so literally as to think we will have tens of thousands of troops there for a hundred years is just silly. Its more like a permanent base like we have in other countries, they don't really affect the country in a dramatic way. It also gives us some leverage in the region, and its not imperialism, Bush is not running the country and other bases we have in other countries aren't taking over those countries either.

You're taking my words out of context and throwing liberal rhetoric in places that I didn't say. I said let the man talk about Iraq as it is an important issue. Maybe you should take a break from the forum, your skills have really gone to the dogs.

[u2]0iqktCdX0hs[/u2]

Roman you know damn well what he meant.

Quote from: The Hero of Winds;1391671The President can't just set up precedents that have any legal standing. That's not his job. His job is to veto, enforce, and lead. When it comes down to it, it will be the senate's job pass down a precedent keeping us in Iraq for 100 years, and if it is unconstitutional, the Supreme Court can make a precedent saying it is unconstitutional.

Congress never declared a war on Iraq, and that was their job.
Seems to me like Presidents can act first and think later.

Under the War Powers Act, the president has 90 days after introducing troops into a nation to get congressional approval.

Quote from: The Hero of Winds;1394402Under the War Powers Act, the president has 90 days after introducing troops into a nation to get congressional approval.

I'm going to copy and paste some stuff because I'm getting lazy and I don't actually care about this. Though I suppose I should. It's just getting off topic.

QuoteBush was required by law to meet the conditions of the WPA before going to war with Iraq. He did not. The WPA required "clear" evidence of an "imminent" threat by Iraq to the U.S. to justify war.

The words "clearly" and “imminent” are repeatedly used in the War Powers Act to describe situations where U.S. military force is lawfully permitted.
Without question, the War Powers Act  bound the President at the time of the Iraq war. It  required a “clearly” defined “imminent” threat to America before the President could approve the use of United States armed forces in Iraq. The only authority Congress granted Bush was the authority to act pursuant to the WPA. There was no declaration of war nor specific Congressional grant of authority to go to war.

source

I think we're losing the point of the argument, and we're drifting off base.

All I wanted to say is that if McCain wants to stay in Iraq for 100 years, then he's going to push for legislation that does so, and he's going to try using his influence in the media to get it, and there are powers available that would allow him to steer the country in that direction. He doesn't need to be in office 100 years to do so.