Discuss the US Presidential Election & the War 1211
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?
Define "Winning" (Score:5, Interesting)
Obama? (Score:3, Interesting)
My concerns are still:
- Obama's lack of experience -- if he is elected, the 4 year presidential term will be the longest job he's ever held -- he's a talented Senator, but he's never actually run anything
- I'm quite certain America's enemies in the middle east will be routing for an Obama victory -- say what you like about Dubya, but those bad guys are scared pissly of him because he's a cowboy that'll bomb the crap out them without blinking -- Obama appears to be more of a lefty peace-nik. I hope him winning doesn't rally the spirits of the bad guys for another attack; and if they do attack, I hope Obama's up to it (maybe he'll make Powell his secretary of defence?)
All that being said, it may be time for a change of the guard. McCain probably should have been President in 2000.
Re:Obama? (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually, Al-Quaida endorses McCain. [yahoo.com]
Re:Define "Winning" (Score:5, Interesting)
Did we already win?
Mission Accomplished! [wikipedia.org]
The joke aside... Look, I'm not a foreign policy advisor or anything, but I see news of marches by the Iraqi people frequently in the US news (that already voluntarily censors much of that sort of thing). They want us out of their country badly. If we can't leave, can someone explain to me why not?
Re:No Contest (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Candidate Summary (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Obama? (Score:1, Interesting)
A large part of Obama's argument is that the war in Iraq was preventing us from focusing on the real threats along the border of Afghanistan and in several different hot spots around the world. In his third Presidential debate, he said that he wanted to turn Iraq over to the Iraqi's so that he could focus on crushing Al Qaeda. That doesn't sound super peaceniky to me.
Also, I believe he was an Illinois State Senator for six years.
War is Good for the Wallet of the American Soldier (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:No Contest (Score:1, Interesting)
War: it's the key differences between the candidates. McCain is a former soldier. Obama is a former professor. McCain believes that the main purpose of the federal government is to defend against foreign enemies. Obama believes that the main purpose of government is to help poor people.
McCain would pour money into the military. Obama would pour money into academic programs designed to lift people out of poverty (for example, education and scientific research).
What keeps McCain awake at night is the thought that the US military might withdraw from Iraq under a cloud of public disapproval along the lines of Vietnam. Under McCain, expect to see permanent military bases in Iraq (modeled after Japan and Germany).
What keeps Obama awake at night is the thought that there are people trapped in a vicious cycle of poverty by the current societal structure. Obama got involved in community organizing to try to give poor people some control over their circumstances. Fundamentally, Obama belives in an academic approach to reducing poverty. Under Obama, expect to see all kinds of new government programs to study poverty and lots of pilot programs to see what approached are most effective at reducing poverty (with a big focus on education).
Of course, there are also some differences in party loyalty: McCain would be less likely to hold the Bush administration accountable. There's also a difference in style. McCain likes a simple world view. Obama likes a complex world view. McCain is more decisive in a top-down "just make it work" sense. Obama is more flexible in a bottom-up "try it and see what works" sense. Finally, McCain has more practical experience with the federal government (decades in congress) but Obama is better educated about how the government is supposed to work (constitutional law professor).
Re:Obama? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not saying this is absolutely true, but there is the possibility.
Re:The solution to the war (Score:3, Interesting)
So we either accept we will forever be in Iraq being pecked to death, fighting for a gov't and country that doesn't want us there and may not understand what to do with democracy once they get it, or give up, go home, and admit we can't fight religious nuts.
Its my opinion that by being there we are holding off an inevitable middle eastern 'civil war'.
The question is, is this a good thing?
Hypothetically speaking, if the UK had stepped in to stop the US civil war, would that have helped? Or would it have just held off the inevitable and made the final outcome even worse then it would otherwise have been?
Many people in the middle east (powerful people that is, not normal folk), are eager to fight for dominance. I'm given to wonder how well their religion based hold will stick when people start counting the cost, in terms of lost family members and communities?
'God is great, lets all die for him' is a popular saying for fanatics who wants to buy into the whole religious war thing, but the cold hard reality of 'shit, all the young people are dead, who's going to tend the farms now', is equally important.
Re:Obama? (Score:3, Interesting)
- Obama's lack of experience -- if he is elected, the 4 year presidential term will be the longest job he's ever held -- he's a talented Senator, but he's never actually run anything
I have heard that argument a lot from the republicans, and I don't get it. Perhaps you can explain it for me (I am not American, obviously). Considering that McCain is old, it is likely that Sarah Palin will become president at some point. Does she not suffer from the same lack of experience as Barack Obama?
Yes, we won (Score:2, Interesting)
Yes, we won.
It can be argued that things are only 99% (or 90% or 80% or some other large percentage) done and it's too early to say we have won. But under the current policy, it's only a question of time. We either won now, or a month ago, or a year ago or 2 months in the future. The outcome is not really in doubt.
We won because we stayed and fought instead of leaving in the middle of the conflict.
Re:Define "Winning" (Score:4, Interesting)
Seriously - think of the situation without the US troops there. There'd be chaos. There'd be terrorist attacks every five minutes. The Iraqis who are rich and well armed from the Hussain days would take over straight away and the whole situation will be the same as before but with a different leader. I don't think you can drive in there, take out the government and then drive out again without sorting out some sort of succession planning.
The real question should be how on earth are they spending $10b a month (or whatever it is) and still haven't managed to get a proper Iraqi government and police force. What are they doing over there? The question isn't when they should pull out, but how they set up a government so that they don't need to be there.
Re:The solution to the war (Score:2, Interesting)
Sure, Iraq is still a cruel situation and one that was handled badly but don't think for a second that it's going to stop there. Even if the US pulls out and "plays nice" the fanatics are going to dig in somewhere else and do harm to US interests simply because they can. Let's face a real fact here. The 9/11 attacks were supposedly over the US backing Israel and having troops in Saudi Arabia. Do you really think that even if we pulled the plug on this and removed all of out troops from their "holy land" that they wouldn't try to find another purpose to martyr themselves to?
I find it odd that in this forum we have people who want to shrug at the same people who would put our collective heads on a stick if they could but rage with absolute fury if someone wants to teach creationism in a public school. Am I missing something here?
And just for the record, Osama and his boys weren't too happy with Saddam either. The war in Iraq only became a religious conflict after Saddam had been displaced. The sad truth is that Iraq should have been a done deal in 91 but the UN fumbled the ball so badly that they make Bush look like Patton.
Re:Define "Winning" (Score:5, Interesting)
Jimmy Carter (Score:3, Interesting)
My biggest fear with Obama is that he'll be another Jimmy Carter: a bright but unprepared president whose closest advisers are his bright but inexperienced gang from back home. I sincerely wish he'd given me the opportunity to vote for him in 2016, after broadening both his experience and circle of advisers.
Re:Define "Winning" (Score:5, Interesting)
if all the money destroyed in Iraq would have been used for good the USA would be in a completely different position right now.
I'm not sure I understand this argument. Certainly we'd have a lower deficit and inflation risk would be lowered... but most of the money goes to men and material. That money goes right back into the economy, since the men are American and the material is mostly sourced from the US.
Now, granted, the payback isn't as good as infrastructure improvement - but there's no evidence that we would have gone into a serious deficit spending mode just for infrastructure improvement.
Remember that WW2 is often credited as being a major force in lifting us out of the depression.
Re:Define "Winning" (Score:3, Interesting)
First you'll need to install a stable and strong government. Make sure it can contain sectarian fighting.
It can be done, at least in principle. Look at Chechnya in Russia for a 'success story'.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
The Surge (Score:3, Interesting)
don't believe the hype (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm shocked at the number of people who think they have insight into the Iraqi mind without ever having actually talked to an Iraqi.....
As someone who served during the "lost year" in Iraq (2006) I can tell you that what you see on TV is not always what's happening. Yes some Iraqis want us out, mainly Shias who have the majority and want to consolidate control over all aspects of the government. Al Qaeda in Iraq wants us gone so they can claim a victory over America. Yet the average Sunni in Iraq wants us to stay because we're one of the only honest brokers between them and the Shia.
Now that the Sunnis have formed the awakening councils and come on board with the Americans, they have legitimate bargaining power. Violence is down to its lowest levels since the war began, and now while we're on the cusp of securing Iraqi political agreements, we want to just up and leave?!
Obama is either outright lying or doesn't know any better about what the situation on the ground is in Iraq. You can't just pick up and leave. We have virtual -cities- of equipment and personnel on the ground there. It would take years to move it out of country. Victory Base Complex alone has over 15,000 personnel there with miles and miles of trailers, connexes, and equipment. At this point, we might as well see it out to the end.
I disagree that the war should've happened in the first place, but Colin Powell said it right, "You break it, you buy it."
Re:Define "Winning" (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Yes, we won (Score:3, Interesting)
That all sounds fair enough except for one thing... what did we actually "win"?
We won a chance at a better future with a democratic Iraq leading the Persian Gulf area away from tyranny and dictatorship. Just a chance.
We also won the end of Saddam Hussein and his family. They were US enemies and enemies of our allies in the area. They sponsored terrorism and harbored terrorists like Abu Nidal. They violated the cease-fire agreement in the last Gulf War. They were evil. And they had nuclear and chemical weapons programs and a history of using the later (even if their actual inventory of completed, operational weapons was low).
Also, there were economic sanctions against Iraq that would not be lifted until Saddam was gone. They were bad for the Iraqi people, but they were OK for Saddam because he cheated on them and used the cash to corrupt government officials in Europe to be his agents.
We have forward bases on either side of Iran now. Iran is the world's #1 terrorist state and they're militarily contained until they finish their nuclear missles.
Also, our resolve showed the Libyan regime that they couldn't get away with having a nuclear weapons programs. Libya took some steps forward when they gave up on terrorism and their nuclear program.
And there's more but I have to go.
Re:Define "Winning" (Score:3, Interesting)
I think anyone who says all life is equal, is lying to themselves. It's simply not true. If you saw an old woman and a child standing in the path of an oncoming train, and you could only push one to safety, which would you choose? I feel that most would save the child. I would. Change the scenario a little bit, now its a person in your family, and a total stranger. Who would you save? Again, most would save the family member. Now go just one step farther. One is in your ethnic group, and one is not, but identical in every other way. How would you handle that situation? Quick! No time to think about it. The train is coming.
I think it's pretty well established that people do not believe all human life is equal. I agree with the parent that it's just a matter of ranking them.
Re:Define "Winning" (Score:2, Interesting)
the proper response should probably have been a good long look at why the US was being attacked by these people
Hear, hear!!
You nailed it. I mean its just like the sluts walking around showing a little thigh and a hint of cleavage. Total deserve to be raped.
Seriously, you do something I perceive as being slightly wrong, TOTALLY gives me permission to ruin you.
Re:Why not to vote for Obama: (Score:3, Interesting)
I have to say, I love Dr. Kamerschen. He's the most interesting Econ Prof you will ever take a class from and is in every way just plain brilliant.
Re:My my, what a silly document (Score:3, Interesting)
2: Bill Gates goes on strike for a year.
Microsoft has about 90,000 employees worldwide...add to that the number of employees at other companies that provide services related to their products, add to that the number of people that are employed supporting their products....and on and on.
If I don't have a job I can't pay for someone to collect my garbage. So at that point a garbage man is a luxury for me.
Poor people don't create jobs or hire people....rich people do.
Re:Define "Winning" (Score:3, Interesting)
Civilization comparison? (Score:2, Interesting)
It seems like most of the arguments being put forward have a hard time thinking about the reasons why the United States invaded Iraq. People seem to think it was just a "mistake" and tend to chalk it up to George Bush incompetence, and/or making the defense industry rich, etc.
Haven't any of you played Civilization?
If you're running a country, and then there's this other little pest of a country that has a track record of attacking people, is technologically inferior, AND is sitting on a nice resource such as oil, wouldn't you want to invade it and make your country stronger (even if you knew there was a chance of some of your military units dying in the process)?
People play games such as Civilization and don't realize that this stuff happens in the real world too.
Muthafuckd up (Score:4, Interesting)
Look. The US, and the 'coalition of the willing' fucked up going into Iraq. Against any UN prerogative and setting a very dangerous precedent for any nation/state that has a beef with another nation/state.
I was living in the US during 9/11 and was actually pleased that the 'response' took some time coming. A measured response, and no knee-jerk reaction. Right. Afghanistan, though not necessarily winnable, was understandable. Iraq was not, and is not.
WMD my ass. Kudos to some who called that out. I feel sorry for Powell, because I think he was used as the only credible person in the administration. The fact that you don't like the head of state is not a sufficient reason to go to war with a country.
AFAICT, the whole war question is mothafuckd up. There should be no war. Is there actually a war? I vaguely recall that there was never any declaration. Anyways, the outcome is that every time the US goes to war, it just means you are creating a new generation of enemies.
Yes, war has brought you friends as well. My parents believe that you saved all Australians from Japan. I respect that, but your record since 1945 is not good. And my parents generation is pretty much gone.... Good deeds may be hearsay.
Mod me to hell. Where I am has not turned out much better....
ws
Re:Define "Winning" (Score:4, Interesting)
"But if whenever the US leaves, there will be a sectarian bloodbath, it may as well be now."
Sensible enough.
The locals can work out their problems their way. If we study the "bloodbaths" of Rwanda and Cambodia, they are a terrific argument for non-interference by the US. They happened, we ignored them, no problem. (No, I'm not kidding or trolling.)
Re:Obama? (Score:3, Interesting)
I like your false dichotomy, it displays your ignorance.
Tax consumption, not income. BUT, yes I favor abolishing federal tax. 90% of the things the feds currently handle should be taken care of on a state basis instead. If there is just NO WAY to return to a situation without federal taxes then I prefer the Fair Tax which is a tax on consumption of new items. The "Prebate" removes the tax burden from the poor and people who are smart and buy used goods and save their money can further reduce their own tax burden.
Re:Define "Winning" (Score:3, Interesting)
I prefer biblical worth. From Leviticus 27:
Male between 20-60: 50 shekels
Female between 20-60: 30 shekels
Male child (5-20): 20 shekels
Female child (5-20): 10 shekels
Male baby (1 mo - 5): 5 shekels
Female baby (1 mo - 5): 3 shekels
Male senior(over 60): 15 shekels
Female senior(over 60): 10 shekels
God's got a thing for silver, so these values are subject to the commodities price for a shekel of silver.
Re:A McCain in every American war (Score:2, Interesting)
I believe that the government should use military force only when absolutely necessary.
While I was not a career man or an officer, I did spend eight years in the Marines.
Your attitude is pretty much the same as most of the guys I served with.
Funny, that.
Re:Obama? (Score:5, Interesting)
"Punishing people for being successful is wrong on any level and for any reason. It encourages business owners to leave the country for greener pastures."
So I guess Reagan was a socialist? The highest income tax bracket under Reagan was 70% then 50% in his first 6 or so years. He didn't see it fit to drop it to "modern" levels until practically his last year as president (to 38%). So he allowed socialism to go on his watch for at least 3/4ths of it...
Oh and the Obama tax plan would take us to 1993-2000 upper bracket tax levels, which are slightly higher than Reagan's last year (39.6% vs 38) and MUCH MUCH lower than his first 6.
So who's the socialist? But seriously, even a flat tax is "wealth redistribution" since the guy that made 10k will only pay 3k on a 30% tax scheme while the poor unfortunate guy that made 200k would have to pay 60k in taxes (under a flat tax!). So one person is (in absolute terms) paying 20x the taxes of another!
Now if you really want to combat socialism, lets talk about wealth redistribution. What would you say to taxing the heck out of companies and then using that money to write checks for all US citizens? That would be socialist, wouldn't it?
Now what would you say about taxing oil companies (in say... Alaska?) and redistributing this wealth to all Alaskan citizens? Wouldn't *that* be socialist?
Israel (Score:1, Interesting)
The creation of Israel was a colossal mistake. All of America's Middle East problems stem from this.
Return Israel to the Palestinians.
Americans shouldn't be interfering in the Middle East at all, and there is not the slightest reason for siding with Jews over Arabs.
Re:Define "Winning" (Score:5, Interesting)
"I have never been to Australia"
I'm an Aussie and I think the best quote I can give you was from an American traveller I met many years ago while travelling myself.
He said: 'Australia is an unspoiled America'.