Originally posted by callat703:
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
i understand all that, i'm simply disputing the underlying logic that since obama opposed the war in iraq he has a better understanding of strategy and use of force than mccain, simply because mccain supported the war in iraq. i don't understand how that makes any sense.
Unless I missed something, nobody is using that "underlying logic." I haven't seen anybody here make the contention that you're objecting to. I'll be honest in saying I haven't read every word of this thread, so if I missed it, apologies - but I don't think anybody has said "because Obama opposed the war he's better equipped to deal with the current situation in Iraq."
Now, if you'd like to discuss the question of judgment related to entering war in general, that seems very much related to what the conversations on the board have been. [/b]
this is what mr. shoeshine said-
Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
the larger issue than how mccain and obama will continue to handle the botched situations in iraq and afghanistan is how they will handle new foreign policy obsticals that will emerge while they are in office. mccain loved the iraq war and still thinks the concept was good if the execution was poor. obama didnt like the iraq war to begin with and realizes that it was not a sound policy decision. for me thats the clear difference
now, your clarification of shoeshine's post is that he's talking about the judgment of each candidate in making decisions about going to war. . .it's clear that the assumption is predicated on a personal view that the iraq war was wrong. . .putting the two together clearly implicates that because obama knew that iraq was wrong (and that mccain supported the iraq war), obama will have better judgment on when to use force than mccain, because mccain supported the war in iraq. . .shoeshine, by relying on past experience (obama opposing the war=sound policy decision; mccain supporting the war=risky and unsound policy decision) to determine how the two would react to future events, draws a conclusion that because obama opposed the iraq war, he'll have a better judgment on when and how to use force than mccain, who supported the unsound policy decision on iraq. i simply do not understand that logic- now, i will admit that i may be missing something here, but so far i don't know why it is. . .
while mccain may have supported the war, he certainly opposed the way it was carried out- surely that is just as valid a position, if not moreso, on judgment and military strategy. since the end of the first gulf war, it's been an unfortunate belief amongst the miliary advisors inside the subsequent adminstrations (both clinton and bush ii, until petraeus) that american air superiority and technology outweighs sheer numbers on the ground....mccain, being a military man, knows that's not a sound ground-war strategy (just like powell and schwartzkopf from gulf war i). . .by saying that his judgment is flawed because he supported the iraq war is unsupportable.
i realize that my initial tie to a future war in iraq was misleading- i thought that my second post was more accurate.
again, i don't know what i'm missing. . .
