Discuss the US Presidential Election & the War

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?

Why not to vote for Obama:

[Hubbell]

Barstool Economics [wisebread.com]

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve.
"Since you are all such good customers", he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20". Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share?"
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got $10!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!"
"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics, University of Georgia

Re:Iraq

[cayenne8]

"Well, there's only been one candidate who has been consistent in his stance about the Iraq war for the entire time -- Barack Obama. And it's a stance I agree with -- the Iraq War is a farce. It is a war on false pretense. We need to leave as soon as humanly possible. Really."

His plan [barackobama.com] to get out sounds a lot like McCains...a "responsible phased approach". Note too that Obama also plans to leave residual forces there, much like McCain proposes.

This from BHO's website:

"A Responsible, Phased Withdrawal

Barack Obama and Joe Biden believe we must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in. Immediately upon taking office, Obama will give his Secretary of Defense and military commanders a new mission in Iraq: ending the war. The removal of our troops will be responsible and phased, directed by military commanders on the ground and done in consultation with the Iraqi government. Military experts believe we can safely redeploy combat brigades from Iraq at a pace of 1 to 2 brigades a month that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 - more than 7 years after the war began.

Under the Obama-Biden plan, a residual force will remain in Iraq and in the region to conduct targeted counter-terrorism missions against al Qaeda in Iraq and to protect American diplomatic and civilian personnel. They will not build permanent bases in Iraq, but will continue efforts to train and support the Iraqi security forces as long as Iraqi leaders move toward political reconciliation and away from sectarianism."

Just cause you go to war...

[Bananatree3]

Let's define "The enemy":
9/11: Al Qaeda, and a month later the Taliban
late 2002/2003: Saddam/Baathists
2004 on: Shiite/Suni Militias, Al Sadr, etc. etc.

Sure Saddam was a POS leader, but he was probably better than Kim Jong Il is and we before going into Iraq we didn't have to fight 5 fronts at the same time while burning a F'in huge hole in our national budget.

If Duyba had left "the enemy" to simply Al Qaeda, we'd not have spent untold billions in Iraq, our international relations would be less strained, we'd have 4000+ less war dead (Not mentioning the tens and tens of thousands of soldiers with mental/physical problems), tens of thousands of less Iraqi dead,etc.

You see where I'm going?

Re:Define "Winning"

[Brad Eleven]

You're leaving out the civilian casualties. The ~3000 figure refers to what the US DoD has agreed to release.

Some estimates put the number of Iraqi citizens killed at over 100,000.

Then there are the injured. This conflict in particular has many, many more injured because of advanced "life saving" techniques, e.g., rapid airlift of wounded to hospital. These injuries include many which are debilitating, such as wounds to the head, the spine, lost limbs, &c.

Then there's the shameful lack of care for veterans which has been gutted over and over by the same politicians who claim to "support the troops" when they really mean "support the war."

Re:Define "Winning"

[Cyberax]

Because if you do leave now, then Iraq is going to become a bloodbath in a sectarian war. Again.

Re:Obama?

[Remus Shepherd]

- Obama's lack of experience -- if he is elected, the 4 year presidential term will be the longest job he's ever held

Just wanted to quash a little bit of FUD, here. Obama was a constitutional law professor for twelve years and a state senator for seven years.

Re:Define "Winning"

[Nazlfrag]

Well whaddaya know, the world and the UN were happily behind Afghanistan, but never supported going into Iraq. Perhaps next time you'll listen to the UN, though I doubt it. You should at least apologise to the French who fought for your independence and warned against your abject stupidity.

Oblig: Military Spending.

[VShael]

Q: If a bomb costs 1000 dollars, and a family of 4 can be housed clothed and fed for one week for 1000 dollars, then how many families could have been housed clothed and fed if we had dropped no bombs on Iraq?

A: None. We'd have spent the money saved on bombs, on some other weapons.

Re:Define "Winning"

[Zenaku]

That definition makes winning pretty close to impossible, I'd say. We've installed the democratic government -- now we just have to stay until the voters of Iraq stop electing the "wrong" leaders, right?

A democratic Iraq is a threat to our allies by definition. Our continued presence isn't going to make all those Iraqi voters suddenly fall in love with Israel.

If the U.S. wanted a democracy in Iraq, it is done. If they wanted a pro-America government in Iraq, they should have installed a pro-America dictator.

Re:Why not?

[stewbacca]

One good measure is how many of the 18 provinces are turned over to Iraqi security. Two more where turned over yesterday, leaving something like 7 left. The last one will be Baghdad (the province, not just the city). Once that is accomplished, we have no need (or desire) for conventional military deployment there. Leave some support troops and trainers behind and move on to the next conflict.

Re:Define "Winning"

[Dekortage]

The NY Times has a handy side-by-side comparison [nytimes.com] of the candidates on this and other topics. Also this article [nytimes.com] which quotes an Iraq expert saying this:

"The danger with Obama's rigid timetable is that it may not allow U.S. commanders to react to events on the ground... [meanwhile] McCain's policies lack the detail needed to confront the challenges of politics in Iraq. Policies developed to please the party faithful are not being subjected to close electoral scrutiny and do not match the complex political and military realties of Iraq."

Re:Iraq

[Dekortage]

Obama said in 2002: "I know that invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East and encourage the worst rather than best impulses in the Arab world and strengthen the recruitment arm of al Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars, I am opposed to dumb wars."

(reference [nytimes.com])

Re:Define "Winning"

[Fred_A]

If they wanted a pro-America government in Iraq, they should have installed a pro-America dictator.

They tried that already and it seems to have backfired.
Stupid dictators not doing what they're told to.

Re:Define "Winning"

[rezalas]

Actually, spending the money on us would be stupid. Because its all loans from china and other countries who want to see us farther in debt. Balancing the economy and NOT spending money we don't have would make a hell of alot more sense than taking one massive debt generator and renaming it "for the people of america" instead of "for the people of iraq". In either case, we go bankrupt.

Iraq != 9/11

[GogglesPisano]

Sigh. Nice job conflating Iraq and 9/11. As has been shown time [msn.com] and time [nwsource.com] again [downingstreetmemo.com], there was no plausible link between the two.

The invasion of Iraq will no doubt be regarded as the USA's worst foreign policy disaster of the modern era. The Bush administration still has not given a consistent reason for it. In the words of Kevin Tillman:

Somehow we were sent to invade a nation because it was a direct threat to the American people, or to the world, or harbored terrorists, or was involved in the September 11 attacks, or received weapons-grade uranium from Niger, or had mobile weapons labs, or WMD, or had a need to be liberated, or we needed to establish a democracy, or stop an insurgency, or stop a civil war we created that can't be called a civil war even though it is. Something like that.

My personal belief is that the whole thing stems from Bush trying to settle a family score [commondreams.org], gain some political capital as a "wartime president", and (while he was at it) grab a lot of Iraqi oil for his buddies.

Winning, Losing and the Slashtardian Bent

[Anonymous Coward]

Since Slashtards seem to link Obamas electability to Iraq with every word, I will explain why you are the center of leftist geek idiocy and will put it plainly so you can understand.

The war in Iraq is not about oil, its not about profiteering, its not even about freedom, its about an FOB, Forward Operations Base. Its that simple and you assign way too much conspiratorial legitimacy to the other leftist schools of reasoning on this. Now what would this FOB be for exactly, once again simple, to reign in the assholes of the region whom by their own words have expressed many views on their place and our place, i.e. the US and our allies in this world and funny, they make no mention of a future where we live together in peace. This is what you leftist idiotic slashtards don't get and never will until its too late. So in conclusion slashtards, your sitting in the comfort of your home or office and sleep peaceably in your bed at night because there are rough men ready to do violence on your behalf. The reasons why are beyond your comprehension and its solely based on their words and actions not ours in this modern historical period.

Now go elect Obama and throw it all away you dumb shits and don't cry when they come for you, you will have gotten exactly what you asked for!

Re:Define "Winning"

[MightyYar]

Consider also the Iraqi government's rejection of the US plan for continued occupation and use of force.

I thought it was pretty much hammered out? Most of the disagreements are things like how US soldiers should be treated under Iraqi criminal law, import/export rules, cleaning up the Arab language version of the agreement, and phrases alluding to future agreements. Mostly pretty boring legal stuff, and nothing at all to do with some "rejection of the US plan for continued occupation and use of force".

Also, there's no way that they will sign anything until after the US election.

Re:Define "Winning"

[lembree]

Of course that's what you see. That's what the US media wants you to see. If you talk to returning soldiers, they'll tell you a completely different story.

Re:Define "Winning"

[Shakrai]

Americans would rather ridicule the French for not deliberately fighting fights they can't win

Yeah, cuz we all know that the French would never be dumb enough to fight a war that can't be won against a third-world country. It's never [wikipedia.org] happened [wikipedia.org].

and generally poke fun at their greater level of social maturity

Social maturity? They are so damned insecure about their language and culture that they refuse to use the word 'e-mail'. Mocking the French isn't solely an American past time either -- ever been to Italy or the UK?

I liken American ridicule for French foreign policy to the ridicule that an angsty 15 year old may direct towards a grown man for not wanting to moon traffic while drunk on a Friday night.

Yeah, French foreign policy is soooo much more mature than ours. Say what you will about the United States but we've never blown up ships [wikipedia.org] in the harbors of our Allies.

It's hardly even a "war"

[bigpaperbag]

The Battle of Antietam (also known as the Battle of Sharpsburg, particularly in the South), fought on September 17, 1862, near Sharpsburg, Maryland, and Antietam Creek, as part of the Maryland Campaign, was the first major battle in the American Civil War to take place on Northern soil. It was the bloodiest single-day battle in American history, with about 23,000 casualties. ------ Casualty estimates from the battle vary widely. The official U.S. account lists 80,987 American casualties, while other estimates range from 70,000 to 104,000. Most of the American casualties occurred within the first three days of battle, when two of the U.S. 106th Infantry Divisionâ(TM)s three regiments were forced to surrender. The Battle of the Bulge was the bloodiest of the battles that U.S. forces experienced in World War II; the 19,000 American dead were unsurpassed by those of any other engagement ------------ 4,119 dead as of July 15th 2008. As of March 2008 there were 8,914 wounded requiring medical air transport. 20,416 wounded did not require medical air transport. Of all the wounded 13,109 were unable to return to duty within 72 hours. Medical air transport was required for an additional 8,273 for non-hostile injuries, and for 23,052 for diseases or other medical conditions. That last one is from the current FOUR YEARS in Iraq.

Re:Define "Winning"

[circusboy]

WW2 is justifiably cited that way, because the government forced a large number of previously existing companies, (ford, GM etc.) to stop what they were doing and produce war goods. in order to produce that many goods, they had to hire more people. US taxes and bond money pretty much went to pay the wages of a staggering amount of the country.

currently, arms and armor are made by a small subset of companies that specialize in esoteric tools of war. they have fantastic contracts and much of the money ends up in the hands of the corporate management. if not the war profiteer.

also, remember that the plague is "cited as a major force" for starting the rennaissance. in both cases it had a lot to do with thinning out the population. same amount of money, fewer people to share it with...

Re:Iraq

[BobMcD]

Furthermore, if you ACTUALLY READ his statement, he's only planning on removing troops. He's also planning on ADDING humanitarian workers, nation builders, etc. Oh, and by the way, they will have troops with them.

Net change in volume of dead Americans and pissed off Iraqi's? Zero.

Read it, its all right there on his web site.

Re:McCain 100%

[ConallB]

Yeah, uh, wasent it the GOP who called for a withdrawl from Somalia? Hmm... I wonder if there is a youtube video of it somewhere....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BPyKpcivQYQ [youtube.com]

About 50 seconds in should do it... or watch the whole thing for educational purposes.

Re:Why not to vote for Obama:

[NeutronCowboy]

Note that Kamerschen didn't pen this. See his website. Also, there's a difference between taking all of someone's revenue, and taking a certain percentage. The discussion is around what the percentage is.

Nice strawman, though.

Re:Iraq != 9/11

[jo_ham]

Your entire post, except for the last line.

If you really didn't mean to attach 911 to Iraq then you did a *terrible* job communicating that fact.

Hell, your very first sentence is just about the most sensationalist thing you could have said there, and is a direct inference that we need to stay in Iraq/can't pull out of Iraq because "the war was brought to us".

Indeed, some from of terrorist action was brought to the US. It has sweet FA to do with anything even remotely Iraqi.

Re:Define "Winning"

[krunk7]

The President of the United States (the guy who actually declares war) says otherwise:

The use of armed forces against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001. [Bushâ(TM)s Letter to Congress, 3/21/03 [whitehouse.gov]]

Re:Define "Winning"

[eos3fan]

not just Republican supporters in business. Pelosi's husband is making money off the war too.

No, you can't

[Colin Smith]

You can't spend your way out of debt, but you can INVEST your way out of debt.

Sounds good but it's wrong, because money IS debt. You can't[1] have money without debt. Reduce the debt (however) you also reduce the money. Increase the money and you increase the debt.

[1] Under our existing monetary system.
 

Re:Obama?

[TubeSteak]

From this side of the pond, it appears that the Brits are bending over backwards to appease even some radical elements of Islam in their midst, allowing Sharia law in various places and half-fearing possible rioting.

I'll give you the "half-fearing possible rioting" bit, but the concessions made to Sharia law are exactly the same concessions the Brits have made for Orthodox Jews and their Beth Din Courts.

I'm not saying either was a good idea, but once the British government set the precedent that a religious institution can setup a parallel system of binding arbitration using religious rules, it was inevitable that someone else is going to follow suit.

Re:Obama Palling with the PLO

[NiteShaed]

Wow....that's just....wow. Let's see here....

No, but he has an ongoing, close friendship with an unrepentant, former PLO terrorist, Rashid Khalidi. Barack Obama attends Jew-bashing parties where the State of Israel, in which Arabs have more rights and freedom than in any other country in the Middle East, is called a "racist," "Apartheid" state and suicide/homicide bombings are declared justified.

Wow, he knows this guy? Holy cow. Imagine if he had donated $800,000 to this guy, I bet that would sink his chances to be president. Man, that would be amazing if a presidential candidate did that. Oh..um, wait a minute, it appears that Senator McCain may have done that actually: McCain also has ties to Khalidi through a group that Khalidi helped found 15 years ago. The Center for Palestine Research and Studies has received more than $800,000 from an organization that McCain chairs. [msn.com] Well, now I guess you can't vote for him either.

Obama has been endorsed by Hamas, and Palestinians in Hamas-run Gaza are actively campaigning for him.

McCain has apparently been endorsed by Al Queda. You know what? Neither one of them have anything to do with nutjobs crawling out of the woodwork and talking about them. I don't hold the Hamas thing against Obama, and I don't hold the Al Queda thing against McCain.

Islamic Socialist dictator Mu'ammar al-Qadhafi agrees that Obama is a fellow Muslim. (I didn't know they had FOX News in Libya.)

We're taking Qadhafi's word for things now? So when Qadhafi tells us that the U.S. is an evil nation and it should perish, are you on board with that too, or just when he says something you find politically useful?

Obama himself has referred to "my Muslim faith." Freudian slip of the tongue? And his statement about campaigning in 57 states [of the Islamic Conference]? The self-proclaimed "citizen of the world" is campaigning internationally.

Yes, actually, when you record everything that someone says every time they speak you eventually catch them saying something that they didn't mean to say. Recently McCain was speaking in Pennsylvania, where he suggested that the Democrats were saying Pennsylvanians are racist. His comment was "And I couldn't agree with them more". Clearly he didn't mean to say that, but in your view he apparantly did mean it, and it was a "Freudian slip". You know what though, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and a mistake is just a mistake.

I think that this "Hussein" is kind of like the other "President Hussein" in some respects. They are/were both socialists. Recall that Saddam Hussein's Ba'ath Party is a Socialist party. I believe Obama is a nominal Muslim, basically a secular Arabist. Pan-Arab unity is an important pillar of Arab Socialism. From Obama's book Audacity of Hope: "I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction." I realize that he was referring to Muslims in the U.S., but it still fits the ideology.

Umm, psst...Hey, superyooser. Obama isn't an arab. I know, the name thing can be confusing, really, but he's really not actually arabic.

Many Arab (and African) parties are socialistic. It is their way of getting revenge on the former white colonialist overlords. (Of course, they do have legitimate reasons for anger and demanding justice.) Obama is trying to superimpose this foreign paradigm of race-class oppression onto the U.S. by means of the slavery of one and a half centuries ago. As an American who happens to be white, I resent this wave of racist vengeance politics -- i.e. redistribution of wealth of whites/capitalists/Jews* to thugs -- in America, swelling with the hordes of fanatical Obama minions.

Okay, being worried about Obama

Re:Define "Winning"

[h4rm0ny]

There's quite a lot there and I don't have a great deal of time at the moment, so you'll have to excuse me if I just cover some of the things that leapt out at me. But to summarise my response to your post, I asked if you had any evidence that the Taliban's stated willingness to negotiate the handover of Osama Bin Laden to the US was utterly a lie (i.e. they never would under any circumstances) to justify your confident assertion that this was the case. Your reply is in large part merely repetition and more forceful restating that you yourself believe this. That is not evidence and does not convince me. It is clear to me that a country does not sacrifice numerous lives and spend enormous sums to invade another country just to capture a single individual when there is a possibility of that person being handed over willingly (and realistically, probably not even if there wasn't). The possibility that the Taliban would hand Osama Bin Laden over undermined the US justification for war. Logically, one way of dealing with this problem (assuming a pre-existing desire to go to war) is to try to convince people that such a willingness is a lie. So I see two parties, one of which has a strong motivation to cast the other as unwilling to negotiate and therefore wont attempt it, and the other saying that they wish to negotiate. I also know that the cost in both life and wealth of a failure to negotiate is enormous and that negotiation costs nothing. My logical inclination is therefore to distrust the party that says they will not negotiate as they are acting against the principle of low-cost for great potential gain. Not saying that this is the case, but saying that I require evidence from the party that says negotiation is futile. It would have to be some pretty strong evidence to justify walking away from the possibility of avoiding so much bloodshed, cost and animosity when the price would have been so little.

Regarding your specific points (what I have time for):

You assume that all countries are willing to be reasonable.

No - I avoid assuming that some countries are not willing to negotiate which is a great difference. In fact, it's more than an assumption since the country in question was actively asking to negotiate. It would have to be an assertion that the country is lying for which I require evidence, which you are not providing. Do you see why when there is a war depending on it, it is reasonable for me to ask for evidence that the US refusing to entertain negotiations to avoid the war was justifiable? Evidence that the US knew there was no possibility that the Taliban might be willing to negotiate? Please don't misrepresent what I am saying.

I had and have ZERO confidence that the Taliban would honor any agreement made with, to use their words, "infidels" if doing so would in the least way inconvenience them or not work in their favor. They would only have assisted the United States if they thought that doing so was going to gain them more than they lost by having to swallow their disgust over even speaking with us.

You seem to be implying that negotiating the hand over of Osama Bin Laden would not be in their favour. As it would have in theory avoided the invasion of their country and overthrow, it is demonstrably in their favour to negotiate. As to their being too disgusted to even talk to representatives of the USA, I again have to ask you why you think that is the case. It was, after all, the USA that refused to talk to the other party and this is precisely what we are discussing.

I have no reason to trust them.

As stated, your reason is that talking to them may avoid the USA a costly war. That would be reason enough, one would think.

Why trust them when we can crush them and nobody will come to their defense? Why take a chance? It is much better for us if the Taliban are all dead or disbanded.

But as it tu