Impact of Iraq,Middle East & Afpakistan on US Elections

[cyberianpan]

Have you considered the possibility that McCain is better off not been endorsed by Powell, Rice,Gates? Also I think it is as clear as the stain on Monica's dress that geeting snubbed by the NYTs is a boost for any Presidential Republican candidate, to think otherwise seems like wishful thinking by those enslaved by Obama's empty charisma.

Not so sure - McCain has large appeal with moderates - not so much the Christian conservatives. One would assume he'd need the moderates to win and it is beginning to look like he is loosing the National Security war:

huffingtonpost


Afghanistan's Ambassador to the United States trumpeted major portions of Barack Obama's approach towards his country on Tuesday, marking the second time in as many weeks that an official at the center of U.S.-Mideast policy has echoed the Illinois Senator's agenda.

He described the border his country shared with Pakistan as "the central front of the war on terror, certainly," stressing the need for additional American forces. And he offered what amounted to a heartfelt endorsement of Obama's proposal to target high-level al Qaeda figures in [color=#FF0000]northwest Pakistan[/color], even without that country's acquiescence.

Funny thing is that the UK spooks and defence establishment wanted to blow the sh1t out of that area of Afpakistan all along but the US wanted Iraq.

Afpakistan needs cleaning , it looks like Obama is up to the task - but the war there could prove bloodier than Iraq. Wonder do the Dems quite realise what they bought ?


cYp

[cyberianpan]

Taken from another thread:

I'm probably rationalising a defeat but it might be in the long term interest of the Republican party and the American right to take a defeat now.

Should they lose Obama will be president. I just can't see this man being anything other than a poor president. He seems to have a limited understanding of economics and is making populist promises he can't keep(tax "cuts" for everyone despite only 60% paying tax).

I think his real downfall however will be Afghanistan. The "good" war is far more likely to the second Vietnam than Iraq. Iraq was too important of a country to be allowed fail. If it had gone the way of Somalia the Iranians, the Turks and the rest of the Arabs would have stepped in and restored order and divy up the spoils without any of this Iraqi democracy nonsense but no-one will in Afghanistan.

[COLOR=Red]Obama's commitment to Afghanistan is as falacious as a commitment by the McCain to Iraq. Both are campaigns being waged basically to save American face. The pretense that Afghanistan is about finding Bin Laden and taking on Al Qaeda is about as sustainable as the Iraqi is about finding WMDs. [/COLOR]But Afghanistan presents two problems for America. No-one else cares about it and they can't let it fail because of the potential for it to destabilise Pakistan. So more and more Americans will be sent to the place to build something which never existed before, a viable Afghan nation state.

McCain has made much smaller commitments to Afghanistan, mainly generalities aboutinvolving more NATO allies in it. I estimate that what he would do is stay around for a while before allowing the "democracy" to fail and putting in a pliable stringman to at least control part of the space between Pakistan, Iran and the old USSR.

WMDs vs Bin Laden

1) WMDs were not in Iraq and
2) a red herring in any instance as they were ineffective
2a) The chemical & biological agent have limited capacity
2b) Iraq as a state had limit chance to deploy them

So are you arguing that Bin Laden / Al Queda either don't exits or aren't in Afpakistan ? Are you arguing that they can only have limited effect ?

Also, other than DR : are other poster's out there aware just how bellicose Obama is (at least on this issue)?

cYp