Why is Foreign Policy an advantage for McCain.

I think it's only perceived as an "advantage" because he has more senate experience and more ties to the military than Obama.

The better question would be why is Foreign Policy a strength for McCain? In that case, it's not - for the very same reasons posted in this thread. That's why Repubs rush to bring Obama into the equation, despite him having nothing to do with McCain's alleged "strength" in foreign policy.

It's also funny to hear people talk about "winning the war" -- there's no such thing. We're not fighting Iraq. We will never "win" -- there is nothing to win. We're trying to protect a country from radicals and terrorist, and in the process we're only losing more of our own American lives. Let Iraq protect itself -- hell, even Iraq said they want us out.

Where's Osama Bin Laden?

 

yeah but it does make your quote reek of crap. I hate crap like that.

the only reason I made a stink is because I thought you edited it.

 

We are actually at pre-surge levels right now. So number two is already acomplished.

I do think McCain has greater foreign policy experience. I mean, I think that's really a fact.

However, that does not mean that McCain will be more effective in executing a successful foreign policy. The key to success in this area is how the state deptmartment is set-up - and I would expect both candidate to be effective in international diplomacy. Now Obama would also benefit by having a greater popularity and that would translate into greater influence for him.

At the end of the day - I really don't see a whole lot of difference policy wise. I think both of these guys are pragmatic and will move to the center on foreign policy once the election is over. I expect both will wind down in Iraq and will move troops to afganistan probably on the exact same timeline.

I'm more curious to see how they would handle Israel or other foreign policy issues such as Iran.

The real differences between McCain and Obama will come down to domestic and fiscal policy. I think that's where the real differences are and where the election will be decided.

 

You have a source for this?

This article says you are incorrect.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080716/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_iraq

 

here's a source: http://www.abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=5388281&page=1

regardless, the troop levels in Iraq will most likely be even lower, less than pre-surge levels - before Obama or McCain take office.

 

You link says nothing of current troop levels

Why should anyone believe anything you say about Iraq troop levels? After 2 seconds on "the google" i found that you are totally wrong.

here is another article.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/05/AR2008060503575.html

Pre surge level was 130K

 

The article I quoted has a subtilte that the last of pre-surge brigades has left Iraq.

Anyway, so we're talking about 8,000 troops here right? By the end of the month? Why are we arguing about 8K troops. The surge is pretty much over and I bet it will go down further before Jan 17th.

You want to keep spliting hairs or address the main issue here?

 

you answered my post saying that he already did #2.

When you answer it incorrectly expect feedback.

Also I am not sure where you are getting 8K. care to explain that?

I get:

151K - 130K = 21K

 

Obama has something called 'judgement'. He reads, he studies, he is serious, he thinks, he is curious, he uses something called the 'internet'. Obama is someone that foreign leaders can respect and work with.

On the #1 foreign policy issue, the war in Iraq, the American people will agree that Bush and Mccain were wrong and Obama was right.

That is judgement.

 

he reads? he must be an elitist

 

Ah! But you see? John McCain invented the surge! It was all his idea! So that trumps all other foreign policy issues. Even a failed war and referencing a country that doesn't exist anymore...twice!

 

re-read your own article you quoted from start to finish and you will see it ok?

 

Ok it says NEXT MONTH will be (which is a guess) 140K or ~8K over.

This is your quote:

So "right now" we are at 21K over what the numbers were Jan 2007.

 

i wish more people who post their opinions here took to reading

 

obama was absolutely right on iraq, whether we know if he would have voted for it or not. that's the point.

undetermined length is still an issue, whatever the surge results are, undetermined cost, well does anyone need to beat that dead horse.

 

I don't know about absolutely right.



from a standpoint of security if he really believed this

i have a few concerns with his opinion on using ( or not using) force.

 

It's time to update our national security strategy to stay one step ahead of the terrorists - to see clearly the emerging threats of our young century, and to take action to make the American people more safe and secure. It's time to look ahead — at the dangers of today and tomorrow rather than those of yesterday. America cannot afford another president who doesn't understand the threats that confront us now and in the future.
Senator Obama

I agree with Senator Obama (was he referring to President Clinton?). Therefore, I will not be voting for Obama.

 

so you still think the war should have been fought on those grounds, no one disputes that saddam at some point had chem weapons, as far as coveting nuclear capacity, its one thing to covet, its another to actually have capability to develop, which I believe is the issue.

 

I think Obama has the advantage in future foreign policy negotiations because he would start off with a blank sheet. Many of the worldwide prejudices against US policy would get fresh start. Actually talking with and listening to world partners would empower them. The simplistic 'with us or against us' mindset can be abandoned to allow for nuance and subtlety in the complex relationships of nations. The State department might become relevant again (under Biden?)