We will still be in Iraq in 4 years no matter what (votes, gallon)

[jimhcom]

The truth is going to take some of the wind out of the Democrats sails in the coming months. What that truth is the realization that we will be in Iraq 4 years from now no matter who is elected. Obama is now flip-flopping on Iraq knowing there is no way to withdraw without creating khaos in the mid-east. The withdrawl of U.S. troops would give Iran the domonant military and political position in the reigon and cause the price of oil to skyrocket from today's levels. The liberal’s misinformed vision of "world peace" is now quickly evaporating. As the campaign continues, Obama will toughen his stance, and the liberals will feel betrayed, which will affect turn out. At least if McCain wins the liberals will have someone to point their fingers at, and critisize for doing what is nesisary to preserve their spoiled cushy lifesyle.

[Reads2MUCH]

I personally don't think we will see the end to conflict in the Middle East for the rest of our natural lives. 4 more years is just a taste of the coming endless wars over natural resources. It will come under the guise of securing the Middle East and ridding the world of terrorism but the main agenda is the oil. And it will only get worse as the years pass by. Our only hope is to change our way of life, no matter how inconvenient it may be for us. Sure, we have auto-makers and scientists making small strides towards helping us make a new way, but not nearly enough. And we are still seeing mass production of gas guzzling vehicles and mass buying of said vehicles. Another thing I find funny is this concept that a car that gets 35 miles to the gallon is some new revolutionary thing! There have been cars for years and years that achieved this standard, but its being touted as some great advancement. You would think after all these years of car design we would have cars that got 70 to 80 miles to the gallon. But that would cut oil profiteers down to size so we can't have that. Some people don't seem to realize that the car makers and oil companies are all in bed together. Working out their schemes in collusion with one another to best make profits for the both of them. But who am I kidding, if the cars got that kind of mileage the oil companies would just jack up prices to insure continued profits. Its a big game and we are on the losing end. Short of riding bikes or car pooling, we really have no control over where this is all going. But I can assure everyone that there will be no end to the war as long as we remain dependent on oil, period.

[delusianne]

Originally Posted by Reads2MUCH

I personally don't think we will see the end to conflict in the Middle East for the rest of our natural lives. 4 more years is just a taste of the coming endless wars over natural resources. It will come under the guise of securing the Middle East and ridding the world of terrorism but the main agenda is the oil. And it will only get worse as the years pass by. ....But I can assure everyone that there will be no end to the war as long as we remain dependent on oil, period.

I agree. That's why we're setting up bases over there in the security agreement that are being worked on now, and working out oil agreements.

The combat troops may get thinned down, but we're in there forever.

[ocexpo]

But Democrats dont really know the situation and how war works. They act like we can just leave. Obama is feeding their stupidity.

[delusianne]

Originally Posted by ocexpo

But Democrats dont really know the situation and how war works. They act like we can just leave. Obama is feeding their stupidity.

You don't mean all Democrats, do you mean it as a shorthand for the teenager/airhead faction among those who support Obama? They're just going to have to take it and like it, that's all

[Sunshine Chick]

Doesnt it worry people that Obama voted to fund the Iraq War and was so against it? Why would you vote to fund something you are against?

Then when he announced his candidacy he flip flopped and voted against funding to show he was against the war. His entire campaign has been about how he wants us out of Iraq and no more money etc but he voted for the funding of it until now.

He has been dead set against the war and now that good news is coming daily out of Iraq, even the President of Iraq said a few days ago they WE are winning the war on terror in Iraq. Now Obama is flipping again trying to hurry to the center so he can be a part of the success.

Something tells me the liberals are going to take credit for its success and since things are going so good there you will see many of them flip over to being supportive of the war.

It wont hurt to have some troops in Iraq, we have them all over the world and it makes total sense to have some based in that region anyway.

So is Obama for or against the war? Someone needs to confront him with this question because McCain has been right on correct all along.

[Soccersupporter]

Originally Posted by delusianne

I agree. That's why we're setting up bases over there in the security agreement that are being worked on now, and working out oil agreements.

The combat troops may get thinned down, but we're in there forever.

You seem like an intelligent person so please elabroate how McCain and Obama differ when it comes to Iraq.

[Reads2MUCH]

Originally Posted by Sunshine Chick

Doesnt it worry people that Obama voted to fund the Iraq War and was so against it? Why would you vote to fund something you are against?

Then when he announced his candidacy he flip flopped and voted against funding to show he was against the war. His entire campaign has been about how he wants us out of Iraq and no more money etc but he voted for the funding of it until now.

He has been dead set against the war and now that good news is coming daily out of Iraq, even the President of Iraq said a few days ago they WE are winning the war on terror in Iraq. Now Obama is flipping again trying to hurry to the center so he can be a part of the success.

Something tells me the liberals are going to take credit for its success and since things are going so good there you will see many of them flip over to being supportive of the war.

It wont hurt to have some troops in Iraq, we have them all over the world and it makes total sense to have some based in that region anyway.

So is Obama for or against the war? Someone needs to confront him with this question because McCain has been right on correct all along.

Yes, and for a long time we were supposedly winning the war on drugs, poverty, disease, etc. Grand claims and media coverage do not make truth. We know only what we are told, and what we are told is subject to change at a moments notice. We have seen no real evidence to support or deny the status of the "war" on terrorism. All we have are the repeated speeches of progress and propaganda. So from where I stand there is no victory or success to lay claim too. Only more unanswered questions and blind patriotism. It doesn't matter where Obama, McCain, or any other politician stands on the subject of this war. What matters is where we, the people, stand!!

[paperhouse]

Our economy cannot sustain another 4 years of spending for the wars. If you want a good assessment from someone who may know a thing or two, listen to this 45 minute interview with Mike Shurer. He was the head of the Bin Laden group until 2005. He was also the man responsible for Clinton's policy of rendention for terrorist groups.

Michael Scheuer | Antiwar Radio with Scott Horton and Charles Goyette

He also points out that the next wars will be fought in Africa for their oil.

[mommabear2]

I often wondered how anyone could honestly believe Obama's "we'll withdrawal from Iraq in 16 months" if he's elected - it't just a ploy to get the votes of the people who don't know much about war. What is done is done. We can't reverse what we (essentially Bush) did but we can try to make it stable and as safe as possible for Iraqi civilians. To pull out the way Obama is proposing - because it's politically popular - is stupid and irresponsible at best.