Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Discuss the US Presidential Election & the War

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the here-we-go-again dept.

With under a week to go, we're opening up discussions on the US Presidential Election. Yesterday we discussed the economy. Today we take on one of the other major election topics: The War. From the actual wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, to foreign policy issues related to potential threats like North Korea, Russia, and Iran, how do the candidates stack up?

2 of 1,211 comments (clear)

  1. Define "Winning" by tritonman · · Score: 5, Interesting

    My big problem with the war and the republicans is that they say they won't leave until they "won" the war. WTF is winning the war? All Iraqis dead? Government has resources it needs? Don't they already have billions of a surplus?? Did we already win? Did we already lose?

  2. Re:No Contest by propellerhead_prime · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Bob Barr had an interesting quote about McCain's position and the war posted on his website.

    The gist of the comment was this: when things weren't going well McCain and other republicans said we absolutely couldn't pull out of Iraq because we would have lost. Now, these same folks say that the 'surge' has been an unmitigated success, but we still can't pull out. If that is the case, that you can't pull out when things are bad, and you still can't pull out when things are good then McCain must really be committed to the 100 years engagement that he discussed earlier in his campaign.

    Obviously this comment is a bit tongue in cheek, but I think the underlying point is valid.

    For what it's worth -- while I consider myself a libertarian at heart, there is no way I could vote for the Barr/Root ticket. Not when the VP candidate runs a sports book. So, this is not a shameless LP pandering comment.