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)
Re:Define "Winning" (Score:5, Insightful)
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" (Score:5, Insightful)
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" (Score:4, Insightful)
Agreed. But remember, according to many people, if you instead choose to use that money within the US, then (for some unknown reason) you hate America. Rationality died a long time ago....
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:5, Insightful)
war tends to destroy stuff - infrastructure, materiel and people - in vast quantities, money gets moved from the tax payers to the producers of these war toys in equally vast quantities, they are *not* going to use it to improve the state of affairs in the country that does the spending. Most of it will end up in numbered accounts in .ch.
Spending an extra 10 billion every month on education or infrastructural improvements *is* going to put that money back in to circulation.
Re:Define "Winning" (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not really defending the return of investment on war, just saying that it's a bit odd to argue that we would have thrown any extra money at education or infrastructure. I mean, we didn't do that back in the 90s when we were running a SURPLUS... kinda hard to argue that the massive Iraq War bill would have been spent on education or infrastructure instead.
By the way, while I'm sure that certain people get quite rich from war spending, the vast majority of the money gets spread out to the employees and suppliers of the defense contractors. For example, Lockheed brings in about $40 billion. Of this, their highest-compensated employee got a bit over $34 million. Outrageous? Yeah... but at 1/1000 of the revenue not really a significant problem. Contrast this with the roughly $38 billion that goes back out to normal employees and suppliers. Even their dividends (about $600 million) are a small fraction of the total money moving through the company, and dividends are as likely to end up in a mutual fund as they are in a rich guy's pocket.
Re:Define "Winning" (Score:5, Insightful)
After Iraq we are far less safe as there are even more people that hate the USA and the middle east is even less stable.
Re:Define "Winning" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Define "Winning" (Score:5, Informative)
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:Define "Winning" (Score:5, Insightful)
World war II brought us together as a country because we fought against clear aggressors and were an "underdog" in the Pacific. Today, we are the aggressors and everyone (at least 70% of us) agrees that the war is a mismanaged waste of time that will have no beneficial outcome. How does your WWII analogy stack up to that?
Maybe it's more fair to compare this war to what it is: another Viet Nam. And what happened in the 70s, after Viet Nam? It was NOT a boom time like the 40s and 50s, I can tell you that.
Re:Define "Winning" (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Define "Winning" (Score:5, Insightful)
You can't spend your way out of debt, but you can INVEST your way out of debt.
If your serpentine belt is worn, investing money on a new one will, with some models, save you the price of a new engine or extremely expensive repairs should it break. Letting it go will cost you even more money, putting you farther into debt.
Buying a new car when your present car is running fine and you're broke is a stupid expense.
It's better to borrow money to repair a bridge than it is to let the bridge collapse.
Re:Define "Winning" (Score:5, Insightful)
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" (Score:5, Insightful)
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
The Taliban would never have agreed to hand him over to any foreign court, no matter how neutral (not even ICC). They wanted to try him themselves in their own Islamic courts (where he would have been acquitted). No, the US response to the Taliban in Afghanistan was the correct one from a strategic standpoint, issue the ultimatum to hand over Bin Laden or else and then invade when they fail to deliver, but we managed to botch a couple of key tactical operations (relying on unreliable tribesmen to contain Bin Laden in Tora Bora for example) and Bin Laden escaped into Pakistan where, presuming that he is still alive, he probably remains until this day. Iraq was a different matter altogether and a strategic mistake, so it is important not to lump these two conflicts together even though people on both sides of the issues have been doing just that from the start for various different reasons.
Re:Define "Winning" (Score:5, Insightful)
Well if AIM had flown the planes into the WTC then that moral equivalence argument would work, but they didn't so it doesn't.
I cannot blame certain Saudis being annoyed with our presence in their country. I agree that we should butt-out of their affairs.
Then the Saudis should lobby their government to ask the americans to leave rather than building a new air base for them. Oh, that's right the Saudis would first have to change their govt to be able to petition said govt., yes flying planes into buildings is soo much easier, and far less time consuming.
Re:Define "Winning" (Score:4, Insightful)
No. Neither should we have declared war on Bin Laden.
We shouldn't have declared "war" on him but we damn sure should have tracked him down and killed the SOB. I rather liked the idea of issuing letters of marque [wikipedia.org] to any interested party who was willing to go into Afghanistan/Pakistan and track him down.
Failing that, we should have used our own troops at Tora Bora instead of leaving the heavy lifting to local warlords of questionable loyalty and/or competence. I'll never understand why we sent 4,000 of our sons and daughters to their graves in Mesopotamia but opted not to deploy them in significant numbers when we actually had a chance to capture/kill OBL. WTF?
The fact that OBL still draws breath is a national disgrace.
Re:Define "Winning" (Score:5, Insightful)
And the people who are the most terrified and speak the loudest when it comes to "national security" are not even near New York City. It's funny how the rest of the country (especially the backwater parts where no sane terrorist would go after because it wouldn't make a difference) gets all paranoid while the people in New York City go on with their lives albeit with a little more vigilence.
Re:Define "Winning" (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Is this a serious analogy? Because it really, really sucks.
If Ford decided that they were going to include a part in a car that would blow up the driver if they also owned a Japanese, Korean or German car, or if GM decided to install something to use the seatbelt to decapitate a passenger if the driver says something offensive, then, yes, it might actually be worthwhile to "declare war" on Ford or GM. But Ford doesn't make killer cars, and GM doesn't make killer seatbelts. Because they're [politically incorrect sign language motions]CAR MANUFACTURERS[/politically incorrect sign language motions]. Furthermore, Ford and GM aren't particularly responsible if a drunk driver t-bones my truck and takes me out. I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that the fricking drunk driver would be responsible, given that he'd be the actual perpetrator of the act.
Say what you will about the war, but you're making no sense to try and compare Bin Laden to a company that makes cars.
Secondly, the Empire of Japan attacked the U.S. in 1941 by surprise, killing about 2400 people and wounding about 1300 people. Everyone agrees this was good enough justification for the the U.S. to then declare war on Japan. (FWIW, the Japanese at least tried to declare war ahead of time and then attacked with the intention of destroying strategic targets, not inflicting mass casualties. They also killed mostly non-civilians.)
So what's the right number? Why was it ok to hit up Japan for killing 2400 sailors and soldiers, but not the group of terrorists that killed about the same or more number of civilians? Because the terrorists are informal and sneaky and it will be hard to catch them?
Point being, there's plenty of validity in discussing if Bush (and don't forget that pesky Congress!) reacted properly, but if you're going to use a certain number of human lives as a gauge for the appropriateness of their response then it would seem that in context of the history of American war the number of civilians killed on 9/11 would indeed merit some action beyond your silly suggestion of sackcloth, ashes and the gritting of teeth as we "get back to living".
Re:Define "Winning" (Score:5, Insightful)
obviously the ~1,000,000 iraqi deaths dont count as people for you!
It's an interesting ideological quagmire, isn't it? Is a countryman worth more than a foreigner?
If you say "no", then the logical progression is to a weakening of the sovereign state. After all, a woman abused or denied universal rights in Iran is the same as in New Jersey, right? Your response should be the same as if it were occurring in New Jersey.
On the other hand, if you say "yes" it allows you to adopt the attitude that a sovereign state should be left alone unless they impose some burden on you and your people. If someone is being tortured or oppressed somewhere, it is perfectly reasonable to adopt a different response than if it were happening in New Jersey.
Unless I'm missing something, it looks like the overwhelming majority of people in the US would have to honestly answer "yes" - an Iraqi life is not worth the same as an American life. How much less is the only real argument.
Re:Define "Winning" (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not a quagmire if you're a pragmatist.
In theory, every life is equally worthwhile.
In practice, I have way more influence over the rights of that woman in New Jersey than the one in Iran.
If I go around trying to solve all of the world's ills, I will accomplish nothing. However if I concentrate my effort close to home, I may accomplish something. Therefore even if I believe that everyone is equal, it is still reasonable to think about locals first.
Re:Define "Winning" (Score:5, Insightful)
As long as the UN is mostly composed of representatives of dictators, theocrats, and kings, I will happily stick with our "abject stupidity."
The US may be flawed, but it's still the best place on the planet.
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'.
Re:Define "Winning" (Score:4, Insightful)
I personally always wonder why the same people ridiculing or otherwise castigating the French never suggest we give back the Statue of Liberty in a gesture of defiance, or rename the hundreds of streets and towns named after General Lafayette [wikipedia.org]. (Hey guys...how important a contribution to America's history do you think that particular Frenchman must've made if he got streets, colleges, and towns named after him, was the first person to be granted honorary US citizenship, and is buried under soil from Bunker Hill [wikipedia.org]?)
Re:Define "Winning" (Score:5, Insightful)
And with all that just said, I am sickened by the American attitude towards the French
Are you equally sickened by the French attitude towards Americans? As a recent example I recall one of their Ministers saying something about how "Anglo-Saxon capitalism" was responsible for the current economic crisis. From my vantage point a comment like that goes back to the whole cultural inferiority complex that they seem to have regarding all things English and/or American.
I traveled through Italy a few years ago. Almost without fail every single time we ran into French people they started muttering under their breaths about "those Americans". Are we really so offensive that the mere sight of us justifies that type of behavior?
BTW, I did read your other post. The reason why I wouldn't advocate taking honors away from Lafayette or returning the Statue of Liberty is because at the end of the day there's more to the Franco-American relationship than our disagreements. They are a fellow democracy, trading partner and we have a long history of working and fighting together with them. That should count for more than our disagreements.
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:Define "Winning" (Score:5, Insightful)
I see news of marches by anti-abortion activists frequently. Clearly that means all Americans are anti-abortion.
Right?
Re:Define "Winning" (Score:5, Insightful)
I see news of marches by anti-abortion activists frequently. Clearly that means all Americans are anti-abortion.
Right?
That's interesting... I've never once seen any marches by the Iraqis where they are shouting chants about how much they love us and want us to stay. I must have missed that in the US media, which would have no reason to want to play that sort of thing... I'm sorry, I just don't buy it that the majority of the Iraqi people support our occupation of their sovereign country.
Re:Define "Winning" (Score:5, Insightful)
What I've been reading from people who've actually been there is that Iraqis badly want us to leave. And greatly fear the prospect of us leaving. It isn't that they are cheering our presence wholeheartedly, but they know we're a big factor keeping the peace (such as it is) right now. While it would definitely be expedient for us to leave right away, it might not be prudent. It's a tough situation, one that I'd prefer we were not in. But we are.
Re:Define "Winning" (Score:5, Funny)
We can't leave until they say 'uncle.'
It's in the rules.
Re:Define "Winning" (Score:5, Insightful)
"Yes, it was an overt PR attempt"
Problem was that it was an overt PR attempt to claim that more than simply the mission was accomplished.
It's much like "intelligent design" proponents go on about how evolution is only a theory.
In both cases, it's a deliberate misrepresentation of meaning.
Re:Define "Winning" (Score:5, Insightful)
You didn't deserve the troll mod for your comment (clearly the wacko far-left is out in force today) but I would still disagree with you:
Anyone who wants to take it differently just doesn't understand the nature of military operations
I do understand the nature of military operations. The Abraham Lincoln did complete her mission. You need to understand the nature of politics though.
The President flies out to the carrier and stages a political photo-op with the national press in front of a "Mission Accomplished" banner. Shortly afterwards the insurgency broke out in full force and American servicemen kept dying. I think you can understand why that would leave a bad taste in the mouths of a lot of people.
In retrospect he should have done the exact same thing but without the cameras and the press. If he had just gone out to the carrier and given a speech to the crew I doubt it would even be remembered by anybody who wasn't aboard ship that day. Instead they turned it into a political photo-op. I think that was a disservice to the military -- politics should be kept as far away from the military as possible, IMHO.
Re:Define "Winning" (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyone who cites the "Mission Accomplished" statement as some sort of gaffe is either purely partisan, or doesn't understand military operations.
I think I'll just go ahead and call it a gaffe. Or bluster. Or hubris. Uh oh, now I have to choose which horn of your false dilemma to sit upon. Oh well, I guess I'll just marry a carrot.
Now for the serious stuff. In war, the mission is accomplished when it's over. If you haven't satisfied your civilian population that the mission you sold them on has been accomplished and the war is over, then "OPORDER" or no, you haven't accomplished your mission.
To the civilian population, the ones supplying the money and fresh meat, war is over when the casualty rate drops suddenly, and matériel is being consumed at peacetime levels.
Re:Define "Winning" (Score:4, Insightful)
I think the over the top "Mission Accomplished" show was a very effective bit of PR and did everything it set out to do - the bad taste it left in the mouth of some at the time and eventually everyone doesn't matter since it only had to convince people until the election. Now at the next election it is just a footnote still ignored by those Republicans so "rusted on" that they were willing to let their party spawn a temporary Monarchy.
Bush and his advisors were very good at that sort of thing - remember he set himself up as a dyed in the wool Texan with a "family ranch" despite having a very different background. He didn't let reality get in the way of a good story.
Re:Define "Winning" (Score:5, Insightful)
I find his speech [cbsnews.com] deplorable. Here's some offending quotes.
Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the Battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed.
We hadn't even touched the constantly warring factions that Saddam had kept in check. The Battle of Iraq was just beginning, and they knew it.
With new tactics and precision weapons, we can achieve military objectives without directing violence against civilians. No device of man can remove the tragedy from war. Yet it is a great advance when the guilty have far more to fear from war than the innocent.
The innocent deaths in this war far outstrip any legitimate casualties. We bombed their cities with little warning and no regard for innocents.
In these 19 months that changed the world, our actions have been focused, and deliberate, and proportionate to the offense.
How on earth is destroying an entire country in proportion to destroying a few buildings?
Any outlaw regime that has ties to terrorist groups, and seeks or possesses weapons of mass destruction, is a grave danger to the civilized world, and will be confronted.
What the hell is an 'outlaw regieme'? Any soverign country we don't like? America has ties to terrorists and possesses WMDs, should they be next on the list?
Our government has taken unprecedented measures to defend the homeland - and we will continue to hunt down the enemy before he can strike.
Godwin much with that homeland bullshit? Damn right you took unprecedented measures in declaring war on the planet.
Other nations in history have fought in foreign lands and remained to occupy and exploit. Americans, following a battle, want nothing more than to return home. And that is your direction tonight. After service in the Afghan and Iraqi theaters of war - after 100,000 miles, on the longest carrier deployment in recent history - you are homeward bound.
Homeward bound, until they were called back. If America doesn't want to stay and occupy a country... then WTF is going on?
Their final act on this earth was to fight a great evil, and bring liberty to others. All of you - all in this generation of our military - have taken up the highest calling of history. You are defending your country, and protecting the innocent from harm. And wherever you go, you carry a message of hope - a message that is ancient, and ever new. In the words of the prophet Isaiah: "To the captives, 'Come out!' and to those in darkness, 'Be free!'"
Nice bible quote, was that for those in Abu Gharib? How the hell are we defending from Iraq when they had nothing to do with any attacks on America? How are we protecting the innocent from harm by wholesale bombing of cities?
If Time magazine [time.com] can criticise it, I don't see why a random slashdotter can't.
Re:Define "Winning" (Score:4, Funny)
He just might. Bush is not famous for learning from his mistakes.
Re:Define "Winning" (Score:5, Insightful)
And if the US leaves some other time, that won't happen?
Find an end state that
A) Doesn't leave the US in Iraq indefinitely and
B) Doesn't result in a sectarian bloodbath
and
C) Doesn't involve nuking the country to glass or any other form of genocide
and that's a valid argument for the US not leaving now.
But if whenever the US leaves, there will be a sectarian bloodbath, it may as well be now.
We won the invasion. (Score:5, Insightful)
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. (Score:5, Insightful)
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:We won the invasion. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:We won the invasion. (Score:5, Insightful)
We won phase 1, clearing the country of (alas, nonexistent) WMD and ousting a brutal dictator.
Phase 2 is trying to stamp out the hatred and violence that phase 1 fomented.
As in so many things, the previous solution is the new problem.
Re:We won the invasion. (Score:4, Insightful)
To be fair, Iraq had plenty of hatred to go round prior to the invasion, and we are also struggling with that.
I, personally, can't wait to get the hell out of there. But I don't agree with people here saying that we should leave the place unstable.
Re:Define "Winning" (Score:5, Insightful)
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" (Score:5, Insightful)
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" (Score:5, Funny)
I'm all for sending them.
Re:Define "Winning" (Score:4, Insightful)
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" (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:Define "Winning" (Score:4, Insightful)
That said...I think Gitmo has a problem that noone seems to want to discuss. Its 2am...out of nowhere guys come charging through the streets with NVGs and assault weapons and you are in your home with your family. It isn't like our guys can broadcast "Hey, we are looking for Person X at this time". So I imagine many of those people aren't related to any terrorism as much as they are frightened out of bed and wanting to protect their family from the ensuing chaos. I know that if a bunch of heavily armed guys swooped into town out of nowhere doing sweeps looking for their target shouting in a language that I don't understand I probably wouldn't spend a whole lot of time trying to discern their purpose before moving to defend myself. The bitch of this is that scared innocent people with guns shooting at you isn't significantly different than known terrorists shooting at you...everyone gets put in a really shitty situation where you have to do what you think you need to survive.
This is by no means an endorsement for McCain, but I for one am really damned sick of having leaders that can make these decisions to fight these kinds of wars having never dealt with it themselves. Go look up some of the things Eisenhower said about "preventive war" or war in general. He is a stark contrast to the modern Republican chickenhawk.
Define "Winning"? Not genocide. (Score:5, Insightful)
I am pretty sure that the definition of "winning" goes far beyond the US just leaving, even for the Iraqis. I am fairly sure that if the US leaves and Iraq descends into a Rwanda style genocide, they will not call that winning, even though American troops are gone.
The war was stupid to jump into in the first place. I thought it was dumb from day one. Unfortunately, you can't unpull a trigger. The US fired, it killed the government, unleashed the openings to an ethnic genocide, and made Iraq their problem. Now they have to fix it. If the cost of fixing Iraq is a few more billion dollars and some dead Americans, that is the price the Americans have to pay.
Everyone wants the "war" to be over with. The problem is that if the Americans leave, it doesn't suddenly make the war over. It makes it over for the Americans, but it doesn't mean it is over for Iraq. Now that the Americans have broken Iraq, the balancing act for the Americans at this point is to get the fuck out as fast as humanly possible without leaving behind a genocide.
The average Iraqi and the US have the same goal at this point. Get the hell out without as little blood as possible. The US wants to go as badly as the Iraqis want them out. The problem is that the players in this game are not just the Americans and the average Iraqi. You also have new Shiite majority leaders still smarting from Sunni brutality under Saddam, nostalgic Sunnis, independence seeking Kurds, Turks, Iran, and Al-qaeda that all have an interest (to greater and lesser extents) in making Iraq a blood bath.
The sad truth is that the US right now is the biggest and meanest on the block in Iraq, and they are what is keeping the conflicting parties from drowning each other in an orgy of blood. At some point, Iraq's central government will be competent and neutral enough to take over the roll of biggest bad ass with a gun and the US can slip out the back. Assuming genocide is not your goal, the question you need to ask yourself is, when will the central government have enough power to keep everyone from killing each other, AND will the central government be able to resist from whacking one group or another?
We can argue until we are blue in the face if or when the time will come when Iraq's central government is strong enough and neutral enough. The simple fact of the matter is that we don't have a frigging clue. Smarter men and women with better knowledge and more information don't know the answer.
Personally, I think the best plan for the Americans is to draw down and pretend like they mean it. If wheels start to fall off, pause, take a breather, then try again. You want to push the Iraqi government to grow a pair and go into the deep end, and you want them to try like their life depends upon it, but if they actually start to drown you want to be there to drag their ass out.
Personally, I think it is a good lesson for the Americans. Next time they try this sort of stupid stunt they will hopefully go in with eyes wide open as to the true cost of kicking over a government and taking responsibility for a nation. Hopefully they will make sure the war is worth the price they are going to pay and reserve toppling governments for when there is truly no other solution.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Define "Winning" (Score:5, Informative)
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:Define "Winning" (Score:5, Informative)
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" (Score:5, Insightful)
"Leaving a fair and stable democratic government in Iraq that is not and will not be a threat to America or it's allies"
Those are 2 entirely seperate things. Suppose the new democratic government decides to go after Kuwait again? Sometimes the people you hand democracy to can vote against your interests you know. That's sort of the point of democracy.
Re:Define "Winning" (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Yes, we won (Score:4, Insightful)
We won because we stayed and fought instead of leaving in the middle of the conflict.
It's strange the way "winning" has come to be defined as "not leaving". The US is not leaving to prove that Iraq isn't another Vietnam. Vietnam is considered a loss for the US, so doing the opposite must be winning.
When Bush was blustering and chomping to invade Iraq, he did not state that we hoped to "win" by not leaving. Hardly anyone but rabid right-wing-Christian-mission-from-God types would have supported that plan, and rightfully so. If leaving means losing to these folks, then they'll just have to find another means of compensation.
Re:Yes, we won (Score:5, Insightful)
The US is not leaving to prove that Iraq isn't another Vietnam.
No. The US didn't leave because the war would have been lost if we had left. If we had left, there was no chance of any favorable outcome. But there was a high probability of a fierce civil war with perhaps millions dead and a widening conflict that brought Iran and Turkey into it.
The people who wanted to leave didn't care about that though: millions more dead, a wider war, no chance of an ongoing democracy, a loss for America, and a future where US allies could be certain that the US would abandon them as soon as anything went wrong. And any regime around the world could feel confident about invading a neighboring country, knowing that the US would stay out of it or run away after a few casualties and some bad PR.
Re:Yes, we won (Score:5, Insightful)
That all sounds fair enough except for one thing... what did we actually "win"?
I mean, what was the benefit of this and was it worth the cost? I don't see how anything is better today than it was six years ago in Iraq. It sure sounds great to say "we won", but all we seem to have done is cleaned up a mess we mostly created ourselves. It just turns my stomach a bit to hear the word "win" applied to the death of 100,000 people, the pain and suffering of countless others, the ruined infrastructure, the financial ruin of our country, etc.
Saddam was a very bad man. Maybe it would have been worth removing him from power twenty years ago when he started gassing his people, but he stopped. I feel I'm a pragmatist and I've yet to see evidence that the day-to-day Iraqi life is better post-war than pre-war.
Oh, and anyone who claims that there was a serious safety concern for the US from either military or terrorist action sourcing from Iraq is ill informed.
So we may have met some goals, but I don't really see what was won.
Iraq (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
"Fast as humanly possible" would be irresponsible.
probably a typo - should be "fast as humanely possible" !
Re:Iraq (Score:4, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Iraq (Score:5, Informative)
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])
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
No Contest (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (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.
the story's title is incorrect (Score:5, Funny)
"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 (Score:5, Funny)
Ummm, this is Slashdot -- that's already implied. :-P
Cheers
Candidate Summary (Score:5, Funny)
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?
WAR? (Score:4, Funny)
Ok, I might not actually be a US citizen, but if I was, I am sure it would impact my vote...
Obama will solve the problem (Score:4, Funny)
I think that the first muslim american president will bring peace to the middle east.
Here's one for you ... (Score:5, Insightful)
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 ... (Score:4, Insightful)
The solution to the war (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Iraq != 9/11 (Score:4, Informative)
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:
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.
War is Good for the Wallet of the American Soldier (Score:4, Interesting)
One question for McCain supporters (Score:4, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
There should be 13 stripes on the US flag (Score:5, Insightful)
You know??? For the 13 original colonies? Slashdot's icon is missing a red stripe at the top.
Re:There should be 13 stripes on the US flag (Score:5, Funny)
If you look carefully at the top of the flag, you can see a few red dots. Maybe the stripe for Rhode Island was drawn to scale.
The war has many issues (Score:4, Insightful)
There are many things to consider regarding the war on Terror, but whatever your view on how and why it got started, the next US president has really only one thing to do. Deal with it.
The US created the mess, now they got to clean it up. Do you really want Iraq to be the next Korea or Vietnam, where decades later the mess is still making the US look bad?
You can't make an omelet without breaking eggs. The real kicker hear is that once you took the egg away from the hen, let it cool, you are committed. The chick is dead. To then return it to the nest or let the egg rot without finishing the omelet is wasteful.
The war in Iraq has happened, you can now not just say "well, we don't want it anymore, bye bye." and pull out.
A really good future leader of the US would two things. A: accept that the situation MUST be resolved and stop playing the blame game or making promises to do things that you can't do because the enemy might not let you and B: turn the blame game into a seperate issue and truly investigate what the hell happened and if there was any wrong doing and take it to court.
A: must be done because if you don't Iraq will be mess and that might easily spill over. And B: must be done because else these things will just happen over and over, just like Vietnam, just like Korea, just like Somalie and countless other conflicts were the US screwed up and ran.
In the meantime, the rest of the world really needs to start shaping up. Stop relying on the US. Europe is richer then the US but doesn't have any real military power. Don't blame the US for being a poor police men if you just sit at home not doing anything.
The rest of the world after all has a intrest to in a peaceful world. Look what happened in africa after the US ran, piracy in that corner of the world is now a serious issue. What will happen in Iraq in 10-20 years if the west withdraws now?
No, the war has happenend, deal with the why and how in the courts, but you can't ignore it and say you are going to withdraw by date X because that doesn't solve anything and give your enemy a clear goal, if only we hold out till date X we have won.
Re:The war has many issues (Score:4, Insightful)
Not to take up every single point in the parent post, but I'd like to point out that this sounds exactly like the Domino Theory [slashdot.org] that was so heavily pushed during the Vietnam era.
For the "Communists" of the Domino Theory, replace with "Terrorists" and you have exactly the same theory being promulgated today as a "justification."
What happened when the USA left Vietnam? Perhaps it wasn't pretty for Vietnam, but within 15 years the Soviet Union was no longer a threat. The Domino Theory never came true (at least not in terms of all of SE Asia becoming communist.
I wish that people would learn a bit more from history - I don't think most of them realize that they're essentially spouting propaganda from the Cold War, and that it isn't any more true now than it was then.
It's hardly even a "war" (Score:4, Informative)
*Star Treck Fight Theme (Score:4, Funny)
I bet Obama could take out McCain, using the traditional Vulcan Ponn-Far rules and weapons. 'Course, Palin would cream Biden, and then it'd be a real fight, between Obama and Palin. Cool!
A McCain in every American war (Score:5, Insightful)
I would take that a step further - I think McCain has a distorted view of the American military. He has been raised to believe that everyone should be prepared to sacrifice their lives for whatever political issue leads us to war. That's way out of step with most of my friends. I believe that the government should use military force only when absolutely necessary.
I also believe that mankind has evolved enough that we can (mostly) end war. You might think that this sounds naive, but I have faith in the goodness of humanity and the power of the human mind. I don't dispute that there are still times when force is necessary, but I aboslutely believe that an immediate and significant reduction of armed conflict can be achieved in the very near future.
Re:Obama? (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually, Al-Quaida endorses McCain. [yahoo.com]
Re:Obama? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not saying this is absolutely true, but there is the possibility.
Re:Obama? (Score:4, Insightful)
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
- 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? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Just cause you go to war... (Score:5, Informative)
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? (Score:5, Informative)
- 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:Obama? (Score:5, Insightful)
George W Bush certainly scares me but I doubt if he scares the Al Qaeda nut jobs. From their point of view he has been a triumph of public relations. Consider that GWB's foreign policy has taken a situation where he had all the sympathy and Al Qaeda attracted the condemnation of just about everybody on the planet just after 9/11 to the point where the USA has the condemnation of just about everybody on the planet for being the bully boy of World politics. Way to go George!
What scares me about McCain is not McCain but his age. If he gets elected, the chance of him dying in office has got to be quite high. If that happens, the leader of the free world with the biggest guns and bombs is another religious person with a proven tenuous grasp on reality. I'll have to spend another four years hoping she doesn't get a message from God telling her it's time for the Apocalypse.
Re:Obama? (Score:5, Insightful)
As to the "Obama has never run anything" charge, can you name another presidential campaign which has run as smoothly, with less drama, massive staff-churns, leaks, rumors, staffers or surrogates going off-reservation, etc.? This is a well-oiled machine, run with discipline, vision and purpose, and a huge number of ground troops, all on the same page. I think that's pretty impressive.
America's enemies and friends BOTH are rooting for Obama, simply because an unstable America leads to an unstable world. I have no doubt that Obama would incinerate a foreign power, given the provocation, but that's WWII/ColdWar thinking, total war isn't really a viable option. Nations are not the danger today, Iran and North Korea included. If they really did get out of hand, say by firing nuclear missiles at somebody (Israel) we could destroy them utterly, at a whim. What's much harder, and what Obama would be far better than McCain at, is talking to them, in bringing the level of discourse down from a shouting match to a conversation.
I would really really really really like to have an intelligent, thoughtful man, who can see shades of gray, who can weigh alternatives, who is not an ideologue, running the country for a change.
I'm going to vote for Obama because I think that having him in the White House will make the world a better place, a different place, both by his efforts and by his mere presence. On his very best day, all McCain can offer me is the status quo.
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?
Re:Obama? (Score:5, Insightful)
At least Obama has this much: (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh yeah (Score:4, Insightful)
The same will not change our situation. Time to grow up and move along.
My my, what a silly document (Score:4, Insightful)
You are forgetting the numbers 1-4 are collecting the carbage the other 6 make, cleaning the roads, doing all those tiny things we are unwilling to pay for, but are rather essential. Number 10, well he is that bank manager that makes his money causing the current economic crisis. We REALLY need him.
The rich and the poor need each other. Who is going to clean your house when you are rich if everybody else is rich?
Here is a story for you.
A very rich man once kept all his money in a BIG building. A freak tycoon came along and sucked ALL the money out and then distributed it across the land. Suddenly the rich men was very poor but everyone else was VERY RICH. So rich that NOBODY wanted to work anymore. No matter how many millions they now had, they couldn't buy anything.
The rich man on the other hand kept working, on his farm and told his doubters things would soon be normal again. And so they did, faced with nobody producing anything, all the new rich people had to buy their food from the former rich guy at the prices he demanded since he was the sole supplier.
End of the story, all the money is back with the rich guy, and the normal people got their normal jobs again, putting the economy back into its normal groove.
Courtesy of the Donald Duck, a story understandable to 6yr olds.
What is missing from your bar story is the analysis that this system of taxation is really one of the few that works. Of course people will complain about their taxes and threathen to leave. It is what people do. You complain about taxes, the weather and the wife. Yet few leave the country with or without their wife for a better (financial) climate.
Furthermore you are forgetting that the truly rich rarely pay all the taxes you would expect them to pay as they can afford the best accountants to find all the loopholes while the poor idiots just pay whatever the IRS bills them for.
No my dear silly little proffesor, I suggest you go back to the school of the street and learn that the economy can't be explained with simple anologies unless you have an agenda to hide the true full complexity of the economy to create a false point.
I am reminded by an episode of Frasier, were Roz dates a garbage man. She is a produced of a program nobody needs for a shrink nobody cares about, but the guy who picks up the garbage is the looser. It is a fairly common attitude, but you can't use it to run your economy.
Tell me the results of the following two scenarios:
1: All the garbage men go on strike for a year.
2: Bill Gates goes on strike for a year.
Which one will you notice?