Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Discuss the US Presidential Election & the War

CmdrTaco posted more than 5 years ago | from the here-we-go-again dept.

United States 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?

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Define "Winning" (5, Interesting)

tritonman (998572) | more than 5 years ago | (#25567583)

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?

Re:Define "Winning" (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25567643)

In war, there are no winners.

Only niggers.

Re:Define "Winning" (5, Insightful)

grub (11606) | more than 5 years ago | (#25567651)


It's a "war" that can't be won. There's no real central point of authority to surrender. In a conventional war (if there is such a thing) the losing side signs off on it, the winner reap the spoils and everyone rebuilds. But at $10B a month it keeps a lot of Republican supporters in business.

Re:Define "Winning" (5, Insightful)

jacquesm (154384) | more than 5 years ago | (#25567755)

oh, don't worry about it, the people lining their pockets with war profits are winning just fine. Four more years of it and they'll be home free. Never mind the effect on the rest of America (or the world for that matter).

Catch-22 was *much* too friendly in it's spoof on war profiteering. Reality is so much harsher.

I always figured that there never was an all-out effort to catch OBL simply because if it were succesful then there would be no more need to continue all these crazy expenses.

Speaking of expenses, simply shutting down this crazy war will give Obama more money than he could hope to raise through taxation, if all the money destroyed in Iraq would have been used for good the USA would be in a completely different position right now.

Re:Define "Winning" (2, Insightful)

theaveng (1243528) | more than 5 years ago | (#25567847)

>>>There's no real central point of authority to surrender.

Precisely. This is why I was against the war from day one. Yes it's sad ~3000 people died, but the same number of people die EVERY MONTH in car accidents. Just since 9/11 almost 300,000 people have died in automobiles. We don't declare war on Ford or General Motors due to this problem, do we? No. Neither should we have declared war on Bin Laden.

The proper response, given the SMALL number of people who died, was to mourn the losses and then get back to living. How Bush reacted was totally disproportional to the small amount of damage received (again, no worse than how many people die in accidents every month).

Re:Define "Winning" (1, Informative)

Brad Eleven (165911) | more than 5 years ago | (#25567999)

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" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25568019)

I agree with attacking Afghanistan. I do not agree with attacking Iraq and I don't agree with the whole nation-building exercise that both campaigns have turned into.

We should have:
[x] blown Afghanistan's government away
[ ] left

Re:Define "Winning" (4, Insightful)

h4rm0ny (722443) | more than 5 years ago | (#25568027)

The proper response, given the SMALL number of people who died, was to mourn the losses and then get back to living.

I get what you're saying, but just to pull you back from going to far, the proper response should probably have been a good long look at why the US was being attacked by these people, following through the investigation to its real origins (weren't most of the bombers Saudi and funded by Saudi sources?) and possibly agreeing to Afghanistan's terms for a fair trial of Osama Bin Laden so that they would be willing to hand him over to a neutral court. This last one I'm not sure if it would have been possible and it's not been shown afaik that they actually had him for definite, but an offer was made which was rejected by the USA.

9/11 was a tragedy that required a response. Just not the one it got by power-hungy people.

Re:Define "Winning" (4, Interesting)

Visaris (553352) | more than 5 years ago | (#25567663)

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:Define "Winning" (5, Insightful)

Rayonic (462789) | more than 5 years ago | (#25567901)

I see news of marches by the Iraqi people frequently in the US news

I see news of marches by anti-abortion activists frequently. Clearly that means all Americans are anti-abortion.

Right?

Re:Define "Winning" (1, Insightful)

stewbacca (1033764) | more than 5 years ago | (#25567959)

Anyone who cites the "Mission Accomplished" statement as some sort of gaffe is either purely partisan, or doesn't understand military operations. Just for the record, yes, the mission was accomplished. Read the OPORDER issued for that phase of the engagement, understand the mission and the end-state requirements and then tell me what's wrong with the whole "Mission Accomplished" fiasco. Wars consist of a string of smaller missions, and in this case, that specific mission was accomplished. Yes, it was an overt PR attempt (and that is a legitimate criticism), but NO, it wasn't an erroneous statement.

Re:Define "Winning" (3, Funny)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 5 years ago | (#25567671)

War is "a strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess?" -- Joshua

We won the invasion. (5, Insightful)

khasim (1285) | more than 5 years ago | (#25567709)

We took out their previous government and replaced it. We disbanded their army.

The criteria of "winning" the occupation seem to keep changing.

And without clear criteria, you'll never know if you have "won" or even if you're getting closer to "winning".

Not to mention our continuing strategy of treating the occupation as if it was still an invasion. We're using air strikes on buildings instead of arresting criminals.

Re:We won the invasion. (4, Insightful)

bhsurfer (539137) | more than 5 years ago | (#25567863)

You are exactly right. We all know "scope creep" and shifting requirements can doom a software project and we're seeing the same thing happening here on a much larger and nasty scale, with the main difference being that people are still dying. Until the goal can be defined there will be no resolution.

I think they (the "they" being the profiteering companies who are influencing the govt) are just trying to keep the war going so that they can keep getting these lucrative contracts, but that's just my opinion. I wouldn't be surprised to see a different approach if we got an administration not so transparently tied to the companies who are profiting - the real question is "does one of these administrations even exist?"

Re:Define "Winning" (5, Insightful)

cayenne8 (626475) | more than 5 years ago | (#25567723)

"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?"

Well, the thing is...at this point, there really is no difference between Obama and McCain as to ending the war in Iraq.

Both of them pretty much have said they will withdraw troops in accordance to what the commanders on the ground over there (Petraus?) say is safe for our forces and Iraq.

You can debate all you want about how the two stood on starting the war, but, at this point, the two candidates are essentially in agreement on methods and timelines to end our participation in it.

Re:Define "Winning" (4, Insightful)

Visaris (553352) | more than 5 years ago | (#25567841)

commanders on the ground over there (Petraus?)

That's always scared me... I know that from one perspective it is a good idea to let people close to the actual situation in Iraq make many of the judgment calls... But, it seems like we're really trusting Petraus (still him?) as the final word on the war. I don't think that's right... It should be the president's call, the people's call, or congress's call. The ending of the war shouldn't be decided by one career general...

Re:Define "Winning" (0, Flamebait)

stewbacca (1033764) | more than 5 years ago | (#25568017)

Again, another statement that doesn't understand military operations. "One career general" actually means "one career general and his ENTIRE staff". You are crazy to think the people are remotely qualified to judge the situation on the ground...unless Brittney and Paris somehow start working in Baghdad. Maybe High School Musical 4 and Dancing with the Stars can be flimed on location? Miley Cyrus as our war correspondent? That's about the only way the average citizen would even be able to point to Iraq on a map, let alone make sound judgment about the situation on the ground.

Empirical measures (2, Funny)

PIPBoy3000 (619296) | more than 5 years ago | (#25567727)

The price of gas just dropped to $2.33 at Costco. We won!

Re:Define "Winning" (3, Insightful)

Gordonjcp (186804) | more than 5 years ago | (#25567735)

WTF is winning the war?

From the Iraqi point of view, winning the war is getting all the Coalition forces out of their country so they can start getting their lives back to normal.

Put yourself in their position, and imagine if Iraqi planes were bombing your town, Iraqi tanks were driving through your streets and Iraqi soldiers were shooting at you and your family. Would you fight back?

Re:Define "Winning" (4, Interesting)

whencanistop (1224156) | more than 5 years ago | (#25568021)

Or you could put yourself in their position whereby Iraqi planes are bombing the munition dumps of America that are trying to blow up your capital and government. Iraqi tanks driving through your streets to pick up the Americans that are trying to kill you and the Iraqi soldiers shooting at the Americans who are trying to blow up your store and your family.

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:Define "Winning" (1)

intothemiddle (1142025) | more than 5 years ago | (#25567787)

You should all check out Robert Newmans "A History of Oil" on youtube.

The First World War was started by the US and UK invading Iraq for oil.. of course it's still going to go on. Though it can't be a war, it's an invasion, a war requires both sides territory to be under attack during the majority of the length of fighting. This is just America and England sitting on Foreign soil while the workers get all the oil out. George W Bush runs an oil company, Iraq has a lot of oil.. you didn't vote for him ANYWAY, so it's pretty much a dictator sending you all out to fill his pockets.

Disagreeing with me just shows how strong their methods have become.

Re:Define "Winning" (4, Insightful)

liquidpele (663430) | more than 5 years ago | (#25567899)

Talking with many of my friends, we've agreed "winning" is just a word being used for "Leaving a fair and stable democratic government in Iraq that is not and will not be a threat to America or it's allies"

Just my $0.02

Re:Define "Winning" (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 5 years ago | (#25567977)

Considering the incredibly high levels of political corruption in the region in general and Iraq in particular, shooting for a "fair" government may be a bit much. at this point, I would settle for a government that didn't engage in blatant ethic cleansing the second we left the country.

Definition of "Winning" (1)

bareman (60518) | more than 5 years ago | (#25567969)

Winning: Permanent sustenance of taxpayer funded maximum wealth for politicians and their corporate allies.

Yes, we won (2, Interesting)

Kohath (38547) | more than 5 years ago | (#25567975)

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.

What wars? Everyone loves us... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25567587)

n/t

anon

Pirst Fost (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25567593)

Pirst Fost

Re:Pirst Fost (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25567985)

Smallest penis

Iraq (5, Insightful)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 5 years ago | (#25567601)

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.

Re:Iraq (5, Insightful)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 5 years ago | (#25567743)

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.

You should probably mention that the "as soon as humanly possible" part of that statement is your own opinion. This is what Obama says on his website [barackobama.com] :

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 â" 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.

"Fast as humanly possible" would be irresponsible. For the troops to just up and leave in one day (which we probably could evacuate them if it were ordered) would be devastating. Stop spreading fear that's going to alienate undecideds, moderates and maybe even Republicans who aren't afraid to vote Democrat.

Re:Iraq (2, Insightful)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 5 years ago | (#25567807)

That's what I meant by 'as soon as humanly possible'. You're being a bit literal. Yes, we have to be responsible in removing troops in Iraq, and yes, we do have to leave a small peace-keeping force in Iraq to support the Iraqi troops -- and this is all completely in accord with the wishes of the elected Iraqi leaders.

Staying in Iraq until we 'win the war' would be the irresponsible thing to do.

Re:Iraq (4, Insightful)

clickety6 (141178) | more than 5 years ago | (#25567883)

"Fast as humanly possible" would be irresponsible.

probably a typo - should be "fast as humanely possible" !

Re:Iraq (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25567795)

Obama opposed the Iraq War but wasn't a US senator at the time, he never had to vote on it and have to answer for it.
Obama opposed the Surge which has turned things around dramatically, and turned a sure defeat into a cautious victory.
Obama has said he would meet with leaders of terrorist states unconditionally.

That's why we need McCain in there.

Re:Iraq (5, Insightful)

liquidpele (663430) | more than 5 years ago | (#25567963)

Obama has said he would meet with leaders of terrorist states unconditionally.

"terrorist state" is a label. What do you think most of the middle east calls the USA? These are sovereign nations and their governments we're talking about. There is no harm talking to them, regardless of what McCain says. You think just by being in the same room Obama would suddenly go crazy and nuke Israel or something? Grow up.

Re:Iraq (3, Insightful)

hansamurai (907719) | more than 5 years ago | (#25567809)

Well, there are other candidates besides the two, Bob Barr says the next president should get out of Iraq and Afghanistan as soon as possible. And Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich were both for quick withdrawals. And undoubtedly a lot faster than Obama plans to.

Re:Iraq (2, Informative)

cayenne8 (626475) | more than 5 years ago | (#25567821)

"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."

No Contest (4, Insightful)

thomas.galvin (551471) | more than 5 years ago | (#25567607)

We have one candidate that opposed the Iraq war from the beginning, and another that still insists it was a rousing success. This isn't even a contest.

Re:No Contest (5, Interesting)

propellerhead_prime (777032) | more than 5 years ago | (#25567673)

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.

Re:No Contest (2, Insightful)

jeremyp (130771) | more than 5 years ago | (#25567919)

No, the underlying point is not valid. Just because the surge was an "unmitigated" success (I thought failures were unmitigated and successes were unqualified), does not mean things are good now, only that they are better than they were before.

Re:No Contest (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25567825)

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).

Obama? (3, Interesting)

boxlight (928484) | more than 5 years ago | (#25567613)

I'm a Republican, but I guess I'm coming to the conclusion that Obama may be the appropriate choice.

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? (4, Interesting)

dunkelfalke (91624) | more than 5 years ago | (#25567655)

Actually, Al-Quaida endorses McCain. [yahoo.com]

Re:Obama? (1)

Jaysyn (203771) | more than 5 years ago | (#25567761)

So if McCain wins, the terrorists have won?

Re:Obama? (4, Interesting)

log1385 (1199377) | more than 5 years ago | (#25567859)

I wouldn't trust Al-Qaida sources. They could very well be posting this stuff just to scare us into voting Obama, in hopes that he will give them more room to breath. The fact that they posted this on a password protected site doesn't really matter, because as any /. reader knows, anything can be hacked. Al-Qaida probably knows this as well and may have expected someone to find it.

I'm not saying this is absolutely true, but there is the possibility.

Re:Obama? (1)

shma (863063) | more than 5 years ago | (#25567967)

Of course Al-Quaeda didn't really endorse McCain. That is an endorsement from some anonymous guy on a message board used by Al-Quaeda. In fact, it says as much in your link:

Al-Qaida supporters suggested in a Web site message this week they would welcome a pre-election terror attack on the U.S. as a way to usher in a McCain presidency.

The message is credited to a frequent and apparently respected contributor named Muhammad Haafid. However, Haafid is not believed to have a direct affiliation with al-Qaida plans or knowledge of its operations, according to SITE.

So really, this is just media sensationalism.

Re:Obama? (1)

sjapollo (1396971) | more than 5 years ago | (#25567979)

Come on. Some dope on a message board says he hopes McCain becomes president, and that's an endorsement? How about Ahmadinejad and Farrakhan's endorsements? Both going to his holiness.

Re:Obama? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25567687)

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.

Re:Obama? (2, Insightful)

Visaris (553352) | more than 5 years ago | (#25567739)

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

A few more terrorists get loose under Obama, a couple tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians are spared due to Obama's "blinking" (read: thinking before bombing/entering war). I call that a net win...

Re:Obama? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25567947)

You think Iraqi civilians will be /spared/ due to Obama's blinking??!? Here are some more, proud blinking moments that didn't go so well: Fall of Saigon [wikipedia.org] . Black Hawk Down [wikipedia.org]

Re:Obama? (1)

Jaysyn (203771) | more than 5 years ago | (#25567741)

Obama has ran his campaign pretty well. Just sayin' :D

Re:Obama? (3, Insightful)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 5 years ago | (#25567775)

If Obama has the sense to surround himself with smart (and experienced) people, and the humility to listen to their advice then I'd not be too worried.

I think Hilary as president & Obama as the apprentice would have been better. Even after two terms of that he wouldn't be too old to step into the main job.

Re:Obama? (4, Insightful)

VJ42 (860241) | more than 5 years ago | (#25567785)

- 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

Nope, "America's enemies" would love us(I'm from the UK, we like to tag along) go and bomb the middle east; it'd give them a huge propaganda victory, and make recruiting suicide bombers from western countries much easier; at least here in the UK we have young male, disenfranchised Muslim population virtually waiting for events in the middle east to radicalise them. The Iraq war didn't stop radical Muslim terrorism, it created more terrorists, and galvanized anti-western sentiment. Bombing Iran or Syria would just make the problem worse.

Re:Obama? (0, Flamebait)

CmdrGravy (645153) | more than 5 years ago | (#25567813)

How much do you think the president actually does 'run' anything ? How much does George Bush actually run ? I don't think you need worry too much Obamas capabilities since he can at least string a sentance together and appears to be in control of his mind which is something neither Bush or McCain manage to appear to be capable of.

Americas enemies in the middle east are mainly terrorists and Afghanistan, their main goal is to recruit more terrorists and McCain is exactly the sort of recruiting sergant they're looking for. International terrorism has increased dramatically under George Bush and with more of the same expect it to increase even further.

Afghanistan is not really about terrorism but the failure of the US to properly conquer the country in the first place. The war there is escalating with western forces pinned down and trapped in strong points whilst the country is actually ran by the Taliban around them. On the one hand how Afghanistan is governed has nothing to do with the USA but on the other it really won't do your street cred much good to retreat with your tail between your legs after being unable to achieve victory after all this time.

Re:Obama? (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 5 years ago | (#25567849)

Actually the Washington Post has this interesting article that Al Qaeda or the Taliban favor McCain [washingtonpost.com] . Some commentary on a pro-Taliban website has said:

Al-Qaeda will have to support McCain in the coming election," said a commentary posted Monday on the extremist Web site al-Hesbah, which is closely linked to the terrorist group. It said the Arizona Republican would continue the "failing march of his predecessor."

It seems Al Qaeda sees little difference between McCain and Bush. And they seem not to be at all scared of Bush. In a way it makes sense for although Bush might be cowboy, he has also alienated our allies and has stretched our forces very thin with a dubious war. The Taliban have always known that they could never win with military might and they are planning on a war of attrition. Take it all with a grain of salt though.

Just cause you go to war... (4, Informative)

Bananatree3 (872975) | more than 5 years ago | (#25567879)

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:Obama? (1)

lsmo (1106631) | more than 5 years ago | (#25567915)

The logic you present is interesting. If the extremist in the middle east want Obama to win because he won't drop bombs at will, don't you think they would know that attacking us would provoke such a bombing? Everyone should understand we don't have all the facts as civilians, people are extreme for a reason. Oppression creates extremists and "terrrorists freedom fighters." The term can be changed depending on what side of the fence you fall. I look at all of these situations on a micro scale. If someone was attacking my property, and I knew that if I faced them in a man to man battle i'd get my butt kicked. I would use all resources availble to protect my family, my property, and myself. In that order, if I came to the conclusion that I couldn't preserve my life and win then strap a bomb to me because I am going in hot mytr style. Please don't think for one minute that I agree with anyone attacking the US. I just would like people to think about the situation on a whole, and not just the US vs. Them mentality. One day we could be on the other side of this, and if rational thought is replaced with propaganda and fear... well you should get the picture by now.

Re:Obama? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25567917)

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?)

They are already planning their next attack. At least that's what I would do. You don't strike when you are ready; you strike when your enemy is not.

Re:Obama? (1)

laughing_badger (628416) | more than 5 years ago | (#25567935)

Experience: his job is to lead and to expect his more qualified staff to handle the details of running and doing Terrorists: 'bomb the crap out them without blinking' is pure gold for them; lots more radicalized recruits once the smoke clears. Talk diplomacy and have a good ground-level human intel network is the way to go.

Re:Obama? (2, Interesting)

Rumagent (86695) | more than 5 years ago | (#25567941)

- 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?

the story's title is incorrect (5, Funny)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 5 years ago | (#25567621)

"Discuss the US Presidential Election & the War" is the wrong title

it should read "Trolls, Strawmen, Partisan Hacks, Propagandizers, Emotionally Unstable Wingnuts/Moonbats: Please Assemble Here"

Re:the story's title is incorrect (4, Funny)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 5 years ago | (#25567657)

it should read "Trolls, Strawmen, Partisan Hacks, Propagandizers, Emotionally Unstable Wingnuts/Moonbats: Please Assemble Here"

Ummm, this is Slashdot -- that's already implied. :-P

Cheers

No more News for nerds, stuff that matters (1)

Nazlfrag (1035012) | more than 5 years ago | (#25568025)

I think we have a new slogan for the site!

Well.... (1)

Capt James McCarthy (860294) | more than 5 years ago | (#25567627)

This thread is going to be painful.

Candidate Summary (5, Funny)

MosesJones (55544) | more than 5 years ago | (#25567629)

Obama: Iraq is Bad we should withdraw on a fixed timetable agreed with the Iraqi government. Afghanistan is good, might invade Pakistan but wouldn't invade Iran

McCain: Iraq is Good we should withdraw without a fixed timetable with agreement from the Iraqi government, Afghanistan is good, wouldn't invade Pakistan but would invade Iran

And of course there is the Sarah Palin view

Palin: I live near Russia I do. War is good, war is what folks in our small towns want its what Dave the Electrician and Marge the Checkout Gal are after. Anyone who doesn't want to invade a country if just palling around with them and we need to know WHY Obama doesn't want to invade France, is he really French?

 

Re:Candidate Summary (2, Interesting)

log1385 (1199377) | more than 5 years ago | (#25567681)

I'm not sure I like Obama's definite timetable idea. I wholeheartedly agree that we should get out of there sometime soon, but is it really appropriate to set a definite schedule for such a volatile situation? Tomorrow the Iraq situation could be totally different from what it is today. You can't really expect to pull out on a certain date.

Re:Candidate Summary (1)

Krondor (306666) | more than 5 years ago | (#25567769)

You can't really expect to pull out on a certain date.

Really? I always heard pulling out was 80% effective, though in my opinion that's not high enough. Oh wait, are we talking about the same thing?

Why not? (1)

khasim (1285) | more than 5 years ago | (#25567773)

Let's be serious here. IF we were really making progress in Iraq then the situation would be improving. At a certain point, it would have improved enough for us to leave.

How many years is that going to take? Why?

Otherwise admit that we aren't making progress.

WAR? (3, Funny)

GBC (981160) | more than 5 years ago | (#25567647)

Admittedly I haven't been following this as closely as I should have, and it will definitely affect my vote* so perhaps you can help me out: Which candidate has the best (or even any) policy in relation to WAR (Warhammer Online: Age of Reckoning)? Thanks in advance for the help!

Ok, I might not actually be a US citizen, but if I was, I am sure it would impact my vote...

How can we still be at war in Iraq? (1)

Kierthos (225954) | more than 5 years ago | (#25567649)

Wasn't the "Mission Accomplished" over five years ago?

The biggest crime in recent history, unpunished? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25567679)

The Iraq war was the WORST thing we could have done stratigically to fight terror. In afganistan we had our fources hot on the trail of Osama and al qaeda was below its pre-9/11 levels.

And then we went into Iraq

Not only was the "intelligence" a house of cards at best, but Significant portions of the Bush Administration including the CIA [pbs.org] were very much against it.

It pulled our attention away from fighting Al Qaeda and opened up a mile deep can of worms, While we left a skeleton crew fighting a growing al quaeda/taliban force in Iraq.

Going into Iraq was not only a tragesty on a humanitarian/political front, but also a HUGE strategic and tactical mistake.


And it looks like none of the current major candidates will take the criminals who took us there to stand for what they did

correction: Skeleton crew in Afganistan* (1)

Bananatree3 (872975) | more than 5 years ago | (#25567729)

Fixed*

A brief overview of the main candidates (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25567683)

McCain: I will say whatever it takes to get elected. Once in office I will ignore what is best for the country, and instead focus on accumulating power, and creaming as much tax money as possible into my own pockets, and those of my buddies.

Obama: I will say whatever it takes to get elected. Once in office I will ignore what is best for the country, and instead focus on accumulating power, and creaming as much tax money as possible into my own pockets, and those of my buddies.

HTH.

At least Obama has this much: (3, Insightful)

Bananatree3 (872975) | more than 5 years ago | (#25567749)

he gives Americans hope, and that is something. In terms of his tactical abilities to coordinate all that needs to be done, I just hope he has one hell of a good cabinet.

Obama will solve the problem (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25567711)

I think that the first muslim american president will bring peace to the middle east.

Reality mirrors fiction (1)

Drakkenmensch (1255800) | more than 5 years ago | (#25567713)

Those of you following the war in Iraq would find it interestin gto look up the new Killzone 2 trailer. The naration hits VERY close to home. "They told us it would only last a month... they told us they would be overwhelmed by our technology and weapons... they said it would be a decisive victory... someone forgot to tell that to the Helghast."

Here's one for you ... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25567731)

Why on Earth are people talking about having Iraq pay back America for the costs of this war with the proceeds of oil sales?

Do people really think that after you've come in, destabalized their country, mangled most of their infrastructure, and generally made a mess of things that Iraq should be paying you back for that?

People keep talking about recouping costs from sale of oil, and I have no idea why you'd expect to recoup costs from a country that you invaded. Especially since, other than finishing what W's daddy started, there really wasn't a good reason to be in Iraq in the first place.

This is like the worst form of imperialism -- we'll invade you and topple your government, and then we'll bill you for it.

Discuss.

Re:Here's one for you ... (1)

qqqlo (1191709) | more than 5 years ago | (#25567949)

Yeah, at least when we invaded Mexico and stole half their country, we had enough conscience to pay them something for the territory. Would have been better not to bow to jingoism, but making someone else pay you for the costs of invading their country? That's even more wrong.

The solution to the war (5, Insightful)

IWantMoreSpamPlease (571972) | more than 5 years ago | (#25567745)

The only way to win, is not to play.

Listen, during WW2 we fought people with a political difference. When Germany fell, though there were "terrorists" until the 1950s, remants of Nazis that refused to give up, they eventually were either captured, died out or simply gave up and accepted things the way they had become.

Today, we are fighting religious fanatics.

They will simply never, ever, ever, quit. And more are being indoctrinated every day. You cannot argue, or reason with, a fanatic. It simply will not occur.

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.

Re:The solution to the war (2, Interesting)

thermian (1267986) | more than 5 years ago | (#25567931)

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:The solution to the war (1)

Visaris (553352) | more than 5 years ago | (#25567957)

The only way to win, is not to play.

Parents teach this to their children constantly and yet, as soon as they grow up, they forget.

The US war policy should be very, very, simple. We won't attack you until you attack us or our very close allies.

Bush's "preemptive warfare" policy goes against all common sense and is ruining our country in so many ways...

Anonymous Coward (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25567789)

Bush made fun of all US people and Allies, with HIS war against Iraq.. He didnt realized, intentionaly or not that saddam of the early 90's and saddam of 2003, were very different. I mean in the meantime, he lost most part of his weaponary, either due to the gulf war, or UN inspectors. One would say, saddam was used to make inspectors go out of his country, but only a few Air Fighters were necessary to remind saddam of his obligation, no need to use massive armed forces against a desarmed nation.
UN inspectors were not playing golf, like bush at time of katrina, they forced saddam to destroy skuds and more.
Now, well just a little comment of WMD.. never heard so much bullshit, do you think it is the purpose of building WMD, to hide them, offer them to your neighbours at time of major threat of your nation ???
what do i mean.. in other words, bush made fun of all of us, US people and allies... and he may not even pay for this, because there is likely even more to say..

Why not to vote for Obama: (1, Informative)

Hubbell (850646) | more than 5 years ago | (#25567797)

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

Why the war started (1)

tripdizzle (1386273) | more than 5 years ago | (#25567805)

People have short memories

"The United Nations once again has ordered its weapons inspectors out of Iraq. Today's evacuation follows a new warning from chief weapons inspector Richard Butler accusing Iraq of once again failing to cooperate with the inspectors. The United States and Britain repeatedly have warned that Iraq's failure to cooperate with the inspectors could lead to air strikes." --Bob Edwards, NPR, 12/16/98

"What Mr. Bush is being urged to do by many advisers is focus on the simple fact that Saddam Hussein signed a piece of paper at the end of the Persian Gulf War, promising that the United Nations could have unfettered weapons inspections in Iraq. It has now been several years since those inspectors were kicked out." --John King, CNN, 8/18/02

Now all we hear is "no blood for oil" and "Bush lied, people died"

War is Good for the Wallet of the American Soldier (4, Interesting)

phmadore (1391487) | more than 5 years ago | (#25567811)

As a soldier, war is good for me, so you'd think I would want republicans. But I'd rather have a democrat who could make alternative ways for me to earn more money. As it stands, we make a fuckload of money for doing our time over there, and it all stacks up. I think if we had peace missions that accomplished the same for us, more soldiers would be in favor of peace.

McCain 100% (-1, Troll)

Saint Stephen (19450) | more than 5 years ago | (#25567837)

The primary reason why Osama Bin Ladin did 9/11 was Somalia. "Hit them and they will collapse." After Blackhawk Down, we left. That was a Bill Clinton initiative all the way - had nothing to do with Republicans.

The world is a big scary place, and it doesn't operate on rational rules. We have to murder people. That's called war. There is no evolving beyond war, the only reason Asia and Europe can pretend to have done so is we're doing it all for them. You put people like that in charge, and you get, well, 9/11. They fight wars badly.

There is a foolish belief that if you simply develop the right ideas, all the world's problems will be solved. It's not going to happen on this planet. Our enemies will be scared of McCain, and they will not be of Obama.

Obama is a socialist fellow-traveller.

Oh yeah (3, Insightful)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 5 years ago | (#25567995)

our enemies have been REAL afraid of W and our military. That is why they went into Iraq and grew into an ARMY over in Afghanistan. And yeh, those IEDs have done absolutely no damage to us. Yeah. That's the ticket.

The same will not change our situation. Time to grow up and move along.

One question for McCain supporters (3, Insightful)

antifoidulus (807088) | more than 5 years ago | (#25567857)

How can a man claim both to be a fiscal conservative AND be one of the biggest cheerleaders for the Iraq War? The two simply do not add up.

Re:One question for McCain supporters (1)

tripdizzle (1386273) | more than 5 years ago | (#25567937)

Because national defense is one of the three things we should be spending money on, national defense, roads, and education. Anything that doesn't fit into one of those three categories should be cut. Of course, he doesn't take a stand on it like that, but Obama would spend circles around McCain.

immoral/illegal invasions have become non-topics (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25567865)

they just talk about the imaginary money now. we'd like to hear mr. obama's take on the phony 'weather'/cloud spraying program, so that we know he's not going to operate in secret. we've had more than enough of that.

greed, fear & ego (in any order) are unprecedented evile's primary weapons. those, along with deception & coercion, helps most of us remain (unwittingly?) dependent on its' life0cidal hired goons' agenda. most of yOUR dwindling resources are being squandered on the 'wars', & continuation of the billionerrors stock markup FraUD/pyramid schemes. nobody ever mentions the real long term costs of those debacles in both life & any notion of prosperity for us, or our children, not to mention the abuse of the consciences of those of us who still have one. see you on the other side of it. the lights are coming up all over now. conspiracy theorists are being vindicated. some might choose a tin umbrella to go with their hats. the fairytail is winding down now. let your conscience be yOUR guide. you can be more helpful than you might have imagined. there are still some choices. if they do not suit you, consider the likely results of continuing to follow the corepirate nazi hypenosys story LIEn, whereas anything of relevance is replaced almost instantly with pr ?firm? scriptdead mindphuking propaganda or 'celebrity' trivia 'foam'. meanwhile; don't forget to get a little more oxygen on yOUR brain, & look up in the sky from time to time, starting early in the day. there's lots going on up there.

we note that yahoo deletes some of its' (relevant) stories sooner than others. maybe they're short of disk space, or something?
http://news.google.com/?ncl=1216734813&hl=en&topic=n
http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/09/23/what.matters.thirst/index.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/31/opinion/31mon1.html?em&ex=1199336400&en=c4b5414371631707&ei=5087%0A
(deleted)http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080918/ap_on_re_us/tent_cities;_ylt=A0wNcyS6yNJIZBoBSxKs0NUE
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/29/world/29amnesty.html?hp
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/02/nasa.global.warming.ap/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/weather/06/05/severe.weather.ap/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/weather/06/02/honore.preparedness/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/09/28/what.matters.meltdown/index.html#cnnSTCText
http://www.cnn.com/2008/SHOWBIZ/books/10/07/atwood.debt/index.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/01/opinion/01dowd.html?em&ex=1212638400&en=744b7cebc86723e5&ei=5087%0A
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/05/senate.iraq/index.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/17/washington/17contractor.html?hp
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/03/world/middleeast/03kurdistan.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
(deleted, still in google cache)http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080708/cheney_climate.html
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080805/pl_politico/12308;_ylt=A0wNcxTPdJhILAYAVQms0NUE
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/18/voting.problems/index.html
(deleted)http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080903/ts_nm/environment_arctic_dc;_ylt=A0wNcwhhcb5It3EBoy2s0NUE
(talk about cowardlly race fixing/bad theater/fiction?) http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/19/news/economy/sec_short_selling/index.htm?cnn=yes
http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/_ylt=ApTbxRfLnscxaGGuCocWlwq7YWsA/SIG=11qicue6l/**http%3A//biz.yahoo.com/ap/081006/meltdown_kashkari.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/04/opinion/04sat1.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
(the teaching of hate as a way of 'life' synonymous with failed dictatorships) http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081004/ap_on_re_us/newspapers_islam_dvd;_ylt=A0wNcwWdfudITHkACAus0NUE
(some yoga & yogurt makes killing/getting killed less stressful) http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081007/ap_on_re_us/warrior_mind;_ylt=A0wNcw9iXutIPkMBwzGs0NUE
(the old bait & switch...your share of the resulting 'product' is a fairytail nightmare?)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081011/ap_on_bi_ge/where_s_the_money;_ylt=A0wNcwJGwvFIZAQAE6ms0NUE

is it time to get real yet? A LOT of energy is being squandered in attempts to keep US in the dark. in the end (give or take a few 1000 years), the creators will prevail (world without end, etc...), as it has always been. the process of gaining yOUR release from the current hostage situation may not be what you might think it is. butt of course, most of US don't know, or care what a precarious/fatal situation we're in. for example; the insidious attempts by the felonious corepirate nazi execrable to block the suns' light, interfering with a requirement (sunlight) for us to stay healthy/alive. it's likely not good for yOUR health/memories 'else they'd be bragging about it? we're intending for the whoreabully deceptive (they'll do ANYTHING for a bit more monIE/power) felons to give up/fail even further, in attempting to control the 'weather', as well as a # of other things/events.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=weather+manipulation&btnG=Search
http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&q=video+cloud+spraying

'The current rate of extinction is around 10 to 100 times the usual background level, and has been elevated above the background level since the Pleistocene. The current extinction rate is more rapid than in any other extinction event in earth history, and 50% of species could be extinct by the end of this century. While the role of humans is unclear in the longer-term extinction pattern, it is clear that factors such as deforestation, habitat destruction, hunting, the introduction of non-native species, pollution and climate change have reduced biodiversity profoundly.' (wiki)

"I think the bottom line is, what kind of a world do you want to leave for your children," Andrew Smith, a professor in the Arizona State University School of Life Sciences, said in a telephone interview. "How impoverished we would be if we lost 25 percent of the world's mammals," said Smith, one of more than 100 co-authors of the report. "Within our lifetime hundreds of species could be lost as a result of our own actions, a frightening sign of what is happening to the ecosystems where they live," added Julia Marton-Lefevre, IUCN director general. "We must now set clear targets for the future to reverse this trend to ensure that our enduring legacy is not to wipe out many of our closest relatives."

"The wealth of the universe is for me. Every thing is explicable and practical for me .... I am defeated all the time; yet to victory I am born." --emerson
consult with/trust in yOUR creators. providing more than enough of everything for everyone (without any distracting/spiritdead personal gain motives), whilst badtolling unprecedented evile, using an unlimited supply of newclear power, since/until forever. see you there?

"If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land."--chronicles

Lynndie England (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25567877)

Remember her?

That was when the U.S lost the war.

Additionally, the Iraq war will be "over" when the criteria for the "War on Terror" to be over are met i.e. when anyone who wishes to do harm to the U.S is dead. Good luck with that one.

Alternatively, and most likely, the war will be over when the U.S can no longer afford to pay for the ammunution.

Slashdot (2, Insightful)

Daimanta (1140543) | more than 5 years ago | (#25567893)

Discussions for trolls, flames that matter.

Let's discuss... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25567895)

"News for nerds, stuff that matters"

The state of Slashdot and how it has changed since September 2001.

Before September 2001 I did post a troll every day.

Now I get here only by accident and that stupid politics section is still there. Some very stupid editors are still there... This place sucks ass so hard... Slashdot used to be a freaking LEGEND (yes... really...) ..now it's sometimes worse than watching TV.

Three Questions: (1)

Shadow Wrought (586631) | more than 5 years ago | (#25567903)

  1. What is our overall strategic objective in being in Iraq and Afghanistan?
  2. How close are we to achieving this objective, and how can that progress be measured best?
  3. What are our plans once these the objective is obtained?

A final bonus question, isn't "Occupation" a far more accurate description than "War?"

The real issues (1)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 5 years ago | (#25567923)

is not Iraq. It is Afghanistan and future wars. Iraq simply needs their military rebuilt and that is fairly close to done. But we are going to lose Afghanistan to Al Qaeda unless we change our tactics AND attitude. McCain and the many NeO-cons keep claiming that we will do a surge there. The surge worked in Iraq because we have more than just troops in there. Sadly, many up at the top believe that talibahn and AQ have parted way, while I do not (though the lower level ppl MAY have called it quits). Personally, I am hopeful that Obama will leave Petraus in charge, since he appears to be making in-roads everywhere. The real problem is our long-term issues. China is building 2-4 new nuclear subs each year. 1-2 attacks and 1-2 boomers. Those are targeting the west (not just America) and will be used to force Taiwan back under Chinese rule. In addition, their Space program has a lot more going on then is commonly known or even acknowledged. Unlike America's or Russian, there is no clean divide between civilian and military in china. They regard everything as belonging to the military when it comes to high tech. We have lots more issues with allowing our high tech manufactuering to go to China. It is building sent around the country into other groups. Not surprising. The west did the same. But we should know better. China WILL be doing more than flexing their might down the road. Right now, we are beholden to them due to the debt of ours that they owe. Basically, we are in the same boat with them, that we had USSR in in 1975; owing lots of money to. We bankrupted USSR by end of 70's and the cold war was actually over at that time. USSR simply had to fall over. I am concerned that we are in the same boat with China. Even now, we are seeing our tech run to China, but do little about it. I have posted before about one experience that I went through. A taiwan businessman from Loveland CO, wanted to invest into a start-up that I worked for. We had communication tech that was not allowed to leave our borders except to Britain, Canada, and possibly Israel (and even these, only under special conditions). This man wanted a condition that said that if he considered company failed, he obtained the equipment. During discussions, it came out that he simply wanted that equipment and wanted to take it to China. Not Taiwan, but China. We were asked if there was a way to secure it, and there was ZERO chance of that. We did not do the deal, but I have little doubt that he intended to sell it. That NEEDS to be stopped. We have spies amongst us, and we are actually in a cold war with CHina. Clinton and W ignored it. The question to me, is who will do the right thing?

The media- already counting McCain out? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25567955)

The media is already saying that Obama will win by 300+ votes, given the current polls.

Am I the only one that thinks that the media (other than Fox News, which is way too far to the right for my tastes) that thinks this election will be much closer than the media thinks? I think that these polls (often conducted with likely viewers and at colleges) are far from unbiased.

I'm not using this as a soapbox to prop my political views. I'm just saying that I don't believe Obama is 100% sure to win the election.

There should be 13 stripes on the US flag (4, Insightful)

aardwolf64 (160070) | more than 5 years ago | (#25567971)

You know??? For the 13 original colonies? Slashdot's icon is missing a red stripe at the top.

You people are thinking of the WRONG war (-1, Flamebait)

alta (1263) | more than 5 years ago | (#25567987)

Iraq is all but wrapped up. Both presidents are going to see us out during their presidency. We'll never fully be out, we still have bases everywhere we've fought.

The war you need to worry about is the one that Joe Biden warned us about. The one that's going to happen if Obama becomes president. And if you don't think Obama's prepared for it, you're wrong. You see, before this war happens, he's going to destroy our 2nd amendment rights, so the citizens won't be able to protect themselves or form militias. Then he's going to put conservative talk off the airwaves with the 'fair'ness doctrine. So, no one will be able to rally the people. Then he'll greatly reduce our standing army, destroying the defense budget. Then he's all set to start the war. He'd have paved the way for any force that wants to attack the US. They just walk in on a defenseless country and have their way.

Yeah, he's ready for war, he's just fighting on the wrong side.

It might not be as dramatic as the russians invading our borders with tanks, it may be more subtle like the mexicans POURING over the border, but regardless Joe has already warned us of this 'event' that'll happen if BO wins, so you can't blame him and BO. You shouldn't be foolish enough to think that Joe was giving us everything he knew about this event. No, he wasn't being rhetoric or hypothetical.

Bush made fun of US people and Allies with HIS war (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25568001)

Bush made fun of all US people and Allies, with HIS war against Iraq.. He didnt realized, intentionaly or not that saddam of the early 90's and saddam of 2003, were very different. I mean in the meantime, he lost most part of his weaponary, either due to the gulf war, or UN inspectors. One would say, saddam was used to make inspectors go out of his country, but only a few Air Fighters were necessary to remind saddam of his obligation, no need to use massive armed forces against a desarmed nation.

UN inspectors were not playing golf, like bush at time of katrina, they forced saddam to destroy skuds and more.

Now, well just a little comment of WMD.. never heard so much bullshit, do you think it is the purpose of building WMD, to hide them, offer them to your neighbours at time of major threat of your nation ???

what do i mean.. in other words, bush made fun of all of us, US people and allies... and he may not even pay for this, because there is likely even more to say..

NOT FREAKING NEWS!!!! (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 5 years ago | (#25568023)

Okay Slashdot I have Politics turned off on my front page for a reason!!!!!!
Stick this under politics and be done with it.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?