Jeff8500 wrote:

I can't vote anyway; why do I care?

Jeff, you responded five times to this thread. You either care, or you're a troll.

And it's clear that you do not know the full positions of the candidates.

Ter13 wrote:

I was against Clinton entirely because she wanted to basically destroy the military working man's way of life by shorting his already "not worth it" pay. (I did the math, and I make about $2.15 an hour.)

I completely respect your sacrifice for our country. My brother-in-law did two tours in Iraq, and has since been hired by Blackwater for about four times the pay. I don't know if the private sector is available to you, but the last time I talked with him, he was very happy with his situation.


I am completely against anyone putting a time-table on Iraq. It needs to be an issue based on national security, and as much as I disagree with forcing Iraq to be a democratic party, things will fireball over there if we aren't there long enough to support the fledgling nation before it has the infrastructure to protect itself.


Our national security has very little to do with the ground tactics in Iraq. Ask yourself what is the litmus test of infrastructure completion is; was it an elected government? was it development of a police force? Now is that worth the cost to the American taxpayers today and their grandchildren whom they are borrowing from? It MUST be an opportunity cost question, and not a "military victory" question.



If Iraq is troubled, America is trouble. The damage is done, and our fates are now intertwined.

Iraq is its own sovereign nation and their elected leaders have made no intention of giving it away to the USA. Hence our fates are not intertwined.


I don't think we should be there for McCain's 100 years, but I don't think we should leave before it is more stable.


What is your litmus test for stability? What is your acceptable cost and damage to the American economy? Every day Iraq is "more stable", so do you propose that we should leave now?

After all, if Iraq becomes a strong democratic nation, the rest of the world will not see our invasion in as bad a light they do now.


It is a democratic nation. What is your definition of strong? Does it mean they have nuclear weapons? Do you trust elected Islamic leaders with nuclear weapons? Be sure you COMPLETELY understand what you are asking for.

obama's foreign policy isnt a complete 180, the problem is that the war on terror was supposed to be agaisnt terrorist groups, the iraq war was a huge distraction from the war on terror because it was a war of taking down a dictatorship. Terrorists dont live in one country but afghanistan was and still is a hotbed of terrorist activity, due to the huge drug trade in that area funding terrorist groups as well as the fact that low forces in the area have allowed terrorist groups to pass through and operate fairly easily.

Afghanistan is the true war against terror, everybody knows by now that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, if your talking about national security then go after the groups that have assaulted your country. Mccain tries to say that what he will do is focus on both iraq and afghanistan, but with what money? Focusing on just Iraq as was done in the last 4 or so years has caused huge problems for the US, you cant realistically expect to keep doing troop surges in iraq and then somehow have more troops to fend off your real enemies in Afghanistan. Iraq needs only a minimal american presence in the form of army bases and a small reserve. The Iraqi government has billions of surplus and they can spend that to keep the country from imploding. The US has to fight terrorist organizations that exist in multiple countries, it cannot stretch its forces out so thin by setting up camp in a country they invaded almost 6 years ago. You care about national security then get your army out of that quagmire thats been severely restricting your ability to actually hunt down terrorists.

Bootyboy wrote:

Jeff8500 wrote:

I can't vote anyway; why do I care?

Jeff, you responded five times to this thread. You either care, or you're a troll.

And it's clear that you do not know the full positions of the candidates.

As I said before, I only said what I knew.

I didn't read the other comments, but I know who will win, although I live in Canada.
Obama. Oprah telling people to vote for him and the failed assassination just gained him tons of support.

Disturbed Puppy wrote:

if not, I know you can do it by mail

You try getting 7-10 miles to your mailbox when you black out from leaving the house. Not to mention I don't like either person enough to give them a vote.

You try getting 7-10 miles to your mailbox when you black out from leaving the house. Not to mention I don't like either person enough to give them a vote.

Well that's just being lazy and stupid. There are plenty of 3rd party and Independent candidates on the ballot(I'll be voting for one of these guys). How do you eat? Seriously, I don't know how a person could even live if they can't go outside. If somehow you physically can't(meaning you aren't just someone who won't go outside of their cave), you probably have a caretaker. So, you could get them to go get it for you.

Disturbed Puppy wrote:

You try getting 7-10 miles to your mailbox when you black out from leaving the house. Not to mention I don't like either person enough to give them a vote.

Well that's just being lazy and stupid. There are plenty of 3rd party and Independent candidates on the ballot(I'll be voting for one of these guys). How do you eat? Seriously, I don't know how a person could even live if they can't go outside. If somehow you physically can't(meaning you aren't just someone who won't go outside of their cave), you probably have a caretaker. So, you could get them to go get it for you.

Go ahead, throw your vote away!!!

Bringing this topic back.