So my first posting was definitely a lazy outlook on my "undecided" opinion on the upcoming election. I'm gonna have to take some responsibility here and actually research the election and which issues pertain to my life and how they will become incorporated in my future.
I'll start with the war in Iraq. Although this is a touchy subject, and many people have their unwavering opinions on it, I feel there is a need to understand both Obama and McCain's views on the war to make the most informed decision possible. With that said...
Obama believes the Iraqis should take responsibility for their own government, and he would like to have most troops withdrawn from Iraq by the summer of 2010. Since the withdrawl of troops would be so quick, the government in Iraq might not be as stable as desired, especially with the Iraqi election in 2009.
On the other hand, McCain believes that we must keep helping the stabilization of Iraq's government. U.S. troops will stay in Iraq until they can govern themselves, although he does mention that the withdrawl of our troops should start around 2013. Keeping a continuous flow of U.S. troops in Iraq would help make the country more secure, but it'll cost the U.S. hundreds of billions more dollars...
So the question is: What is the causal relationship, if any, between the war in Iraq and our government's involvement? Or more specifically, what is the causal relationship between Iraq's ability to self-govern and the need for our own government's help? Should we spend billions of dollars to help another country govern itself? Or should we just let them help themselves?
Oh the dilemma...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Although basic, the information given within your blog does spark my interest to debate.
Withdrawing from Iraq too quickly would cause their "government" to evaporate overnight. The fault in Obama's plan is that it appears as though he has overlooked the fact that the longer we've stayed, the more dependent Iraq is on us; and as stated by a, surprisingly, Republican candidate, "we have been trapped by the case we have tried to make there in the first place". To throw in a twist...the candidate that stated this was John McCain in 1983 when referring to keeping our troops in Lebanon during Reagan's turn in office.
On the flip side, to remain in Iraq and to continue on the path that Bush has created, would be detrimental to our economy and to our troops' lives. The billion plus budget that has been expended daily, is furthering us in our journey into deeper and deeper debt as a country.
Both plans are have their faults, but what I believe should be the true deciding factor is the state in which our economy is in.
I think we need to answer this question we need to steer away from the mccain/obama said and first ask, What was the official reason for going to war with iraq? The official answer given by our current president in power was stated as to find weapons of "mass destruction". Which frankly was never accomplished and obviously no proof of these alleged weapons were found. So in terms of reason to go to war and the campain that said we are going there to protect ourselves from these "weapons" was completely caused by being misinformed. Not to mention we went against the UN's decision of not going to war because of the lack of proof and stubornly ignored them, made fun of them because we thought they were completely wrong, and after facing failure we had to admit to the world that we were wrong and take the blame for it. I believe that we shouldnt have gone, but that cannot be changed so we must fix what we did, but this said we cannot babysit them and spoon-feed them almost a decade after we invaded (if we stay till 2013). We should fix their government that we destroyed and let them develop by themselves. Our country was not helped as much when we created our own government. Worse thing that could happen would be that Iraq becomes a "bad"/"evil" country again and this time if they really were "against the safety" of our country and other powerful countries, then the UN would step in which would make it a worldwide decision and we would not be put to blame if we are wrong again. Not to mention the UN forces would consist of men from all countries, which would limit/reduce the amount of American soldiers at risk. And if someone says war helps the economy, i say BS because that is only true when we win the war and then LEAVE. This can be seen evident in world war two, and can obviously be seen as a negative when we don't win and leave seen by the present state of our economy. Thus Obama has the economical(concerning money and lives of American citizens) correct response to the war problem.
Post a Comment