Who will not get us out of Iraq?

[onehandle]

And by out, I mean the majority of troops out and no longer fighting the Iraq Civil War.

We will have some troops there forever (Note the American Fortress in Baghdad).

[taterguy]

1. Other, people that insist on driving every day

Despite the fact that most of us generally think that oil wars are bad things.

[Tesha]

2. Uhh, "All of the above"?

We're going to be there (in one way or another, overt
or covert) for a long, long time...

Tesha

[onehandle]

3. Yes, yes. I covered that.

:)

[endarkenment]

No, no you didn't.

[Tesha]

11. I understood. But it's the most appropriate answer I could come up with. (NT)

[endarkenment]

4. Your question is poorly phrased.

It would be better put as "Who is least likely to get us out of Iraq?". For example, I might think that none of the above will succeed, but that McSame will fail to even try.

[onehandle]

5. So there are those at DU who think that John McCain is more likely to get us out of Iraq...

...than Hillary and Barack?

:crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy:

[endarkenment]

6. The question is not phrased well.

[onehandle]

8. It is what it is. nt

[endarkenment]

9. Perhaps you don't understand?

"Who will not get us out?" is not a valid 'pick one' question as more than one choice may be the correct answer.

[onehandle]

10. Ok.

I was fishing for something with my phrasing. And I got what I wanted.

[Abacus]

15. Some answers are more correct than others

I'm hoping people just missed the negation.

[Tesha]

13. Actually, there are scenarios where I could see that as being true.

For example (just hypothetically now), if John
McCain starts a new war with someone outside of
southwest Asia and the Middle East, he might be
*FORCED* To get out of Iraq to provide canon
folder troops to fight his new war.

Tesha

[jobycom]

17. Yes. I think McCain is more likely to get the troops out than Obama, for instance

And I'm sure there are those who think the same thing about Clinton.

I believe Obama's lack of experience will keep him from knowing how to stand against the state department and the Pentagon, so while he may want to do something, I think he'll be manipulated and bullied the way LBJ was. Clinton has dealt with these people enough to handle them.

McCain, I believe, may be the fastest to withdraw troops, and here's why. I think McCain, if he won, would be so eager to earn approval that he will try something dramatic. He will fake a victory to bring the troops home, then claim he won the war that he had supported all along. He'll leave a token presence there, but all three are saying they'd do that. Since McCain is the same party as those who support the war, they will be more likely to go along with what he wants, especially if he makes them look good by declaring their plan a success.

These same people--the entrenched military establishment and such--will fight Clinton and Obama, because if they withdraw the troops, it will be part of an admission that the whole plan was wrong, and these folk can't admit that.

I think McCain is more likely to get us in a war someplace else than either Clinton or Obama. Clinton's arrogance and Obama's inexperience mean that they could be played into a war, but they would both have strong resistance to it. McCain would like the chance to prove he can start and win a war. I doubt he would invade Iran, though I can see him trying a "surgical" strike on Iran's "weapons" productions, which of course would start a war he couldn't handle, anyway. But I think he is most likely to use missile attacks and maybe a couple of small commando raids to look tough, kill lots of people, and walk away smiling. Like Bush Daddy in Panama. That's who he reminds me most of. He's somewhat moderate by inclination, but far too eager to prove his toughness at the expense of innocent lives.

Just my thoughts. Needless to say, Clinton is my first choice, but I'll go for Obama over McCain. Though to be honest, it's closer than I ever dreamed it would be for me. :(

[slackmaster]

7. Poll should have been done with check boxes

Or at least had an "All of the above" option.

[goldcanyonaz]

12. Other: All the above.

[emilyg]

16. Yep.

[harun]

14. Hillary's Iraq policy is essentially the same as McCains, difference with

McCain is he will start a war with Iran, or at least bomb them. Hillary may still do that but the chances are much much less. Obama will likely keep a presence in Iraq that is bigger than Liberals want, but he is the best of the three. He will switch more resources back to Afghanistan. He will also be the least likely of the three to give in to the AIPAC pressure to destroy Iran.

[jobycom]

18. Which Obama Iraq policy? The one he tells the voters, or the one he tells our allies, or

the one that his voting record shows? I mean, dude claims he's been against the war from the beginning (although his 2002 speech condemning the war was rather militaristic), but he's voted the same as Clinton on Iraq. The first chance he got, he voted against withdrawing the troops, and he voted for increased funding of the troops, even though one of his campaign promises was to oppose such funding increases. Then his advisers go abroad and claim that Obama's estimate of 16 month withdrawal plan is a "best case" estimate, and that Obama won't "rely on" his plan as president.

Obama's Iraq policy statements, as his advisers told Canadian officials about his NAFTA positions, "should be viewed as more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans."

Obama went on the Daily Show and admitted he lied to "play the game." How Clinton is labeled as the liar, I don't know. Well, I do. The media wants McCain to face Obama instead of Clinton, that's how.

The Who was wrong. We will get fooled again.

[harun]

20. The Iraq policy that is better than Clintons, which is all of the above (n/t)

[damntexdem]

19. Any embassy has guards.

What we don't need is an imperial occupation, U.S. troops' blood to safeguard Cheney's oil.