Slashdot Mirror
Discuss the US Presidential Election & the War
With under a week to go, we're opening up discussions on the US Presidential Election. Yesterday we discussed
the economy. Today we take on one of the other major election topics: The War. From the actual wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, to foreign policy issues related to potential threats like North Korea, Russia, and Iran, how do the candidates stack up?
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?
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.
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.
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.
Seek and ye shall find.
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.
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).
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.
A learning experience is one of those things that say, 'You know that thing you just did? Don't do that.' - D. Adams
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.
A nice way of putting it but what do you do when the war is brought to us? Oddly enough, people keep forgetting what they claimed they'd never forget less than a decade ago.
Sure, Iraq is still a cruel situation and one that was handled badly but don't think for a second that it's going to stop there. Even if the US pulls out and "plays nice" the fanatics are going to dig in somewhere else and do harm to US interests simply because they can. Let's face a real fact here. The 9/11 attacks were supposedly over the US backing Israel and having troops in Saudi Arabia. Do you really think that even if we pulled the plug on this and removed all of out troops from their "holy land" that they wouldn't try to find another purpose to martyr themselves to?
I find it odd that in this forum we have people who want to shrug at the same people who would put our collective heads on a stick if they could but rage with absolute fury if someone wants to teach creationism in a public school. Am I missing something here?
And just for the record, Osama and his boys weren't too happy with Saddam either. The war in Iraq only became a religious conflict after Saddam had been displaced. The sad truth is that Iraq should have been a done deal in 91 but the UN fumbled the ball so badly that they make Bush look like Patton.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
My biggest fear with Obama is that he'll be another Jimmy Carter: a bright but unprepared president whose closest advisers are his bright but inexperienced gang from back home. I sincerely wish he'd given me the opportunity to vote for him in 2016, after broadening both his experience and circle of advisers.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
What has lost the debate on the war in Iraq for the Republicans is Palin's stupid insistence that the whole 'surge' has been a success. It hasn't and it is storing up a massive amount of trouble. The war lords and local leaders who control various communities have been bought off with troops handing out grants and other incentives, and so violence has lessened. What happens when that money runs out? They will fight for control all over again. It makes a withdrawal close to impossible as everyone in the region fights to fill the vacuum.
I'm shocked at the number of people who think they have insight into the Iraqi mind without ever having actually talked to an Iraqi.....
As someone who served during the "lost year" in Iraq (2006) I can tell you that what you see on TV is not always what's happening. Yes some Iraqis want us out, mainly Shias who have the majority and want to consolidate control over all aspects of the government. Al Qaeda in Iraq wants us gone so they can claim a victory over America. Yet the average Sunni in Iraq wants us to stay because we're one of the only honest brokers between them and the Shia.
Now that the Sunnis have formed the awakening councils and come on board with the Americans, they have legitimate bargaining power. Violence is down to its lowest levels since the war began, and now while we're on the cusp of securing Iraqi political agreements, we want to just up and leave?!
Obama is either outright lying or doesn't know any better about what the situation on the ground is in Iraq. You can't just pick up and leave. We have virtual -cities- of equipment and personnel on the ground there. It would take years to move it out of country. Victory Base Complex alone has over 15,000 personnel there with miles and miles of trailers, connexes, and equipment. At this point, we might as well see it out to the end.
I disagree that the war should've happened in the first place, but Colin Powell said it right, "You break it, you buy it."
I have to say, I love Dr. Kamerschen. He's the most interesting Econ Prof you will ever take a class from and is in every way just plain brilliant.
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
2: Bill Gates goes on strike for a year.
Microsoft has about 90,000 employees worldwide...add to that the number of employees at other companies that provide services related to their products, add to that the number of people that are employed supporting their products....and on and on.
If I don't have a job I can't pay for someone to collect my garbage. So at that point a garbage man is a luxury for me.
Poor people don't create jobs or hire people....rich people do.
People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them
It seems like most of the arguments being put forward have a hard time thinking about the reasons why the United States invaded Iraq. People seem to think it was just a "mistake" and tend to chalk it up to George Bush incompetence, and/or making the defense industry rich, etc.
Haven't any of you played Civilization?
If you're running a country, and then there's this other little pest of a country that has a track record of attacking people, is technologically inferior, AND is sitting on a nice resource such as oil, wouldn't you want to invade it and make your country stronger (even if you knew there was a chance of some of your military units dying in the process)?
People play games such as Civilization and don't realize that this stuff happens in the real world too.
Look. The US, and the 'coalition of the willing' fucked up going into Iraq. Against any UN prerogative and setting a very dangerous precedent for any nation/state that has a beef with another nation/state.
I was living in the US during 9/11 and was actually pleased that the 'response' took some time coming. A measured response, and no knee-jerk reaction. Right. Afghanistan, though not necessarily winnable, was understandable. Iraq was not, and is not.
WMD my ass. Kudos to some who called that out. I feel sorry for Powell, because I think he was used as the only credible person in the administration. The fact that you don't like the head of state is not a sufficient reason to go to war with a country.
AFAICT, the whole war question is mothafuckd up. There should be no war. Is there actually a war? I vaguely recall that there was never any declaration. Anyways, the outcome is that every time the US goes to war, it just means you are creating a new generation of enemies.
Yes, war has brought you friends as well. My parents believe that you saved all Australians from Japan. I respect that, but your record since 1945 is not good. And my parents generation is pretty much gone.... Good deeds may be hearsay.
Mod me to hell. Where I am has not turned out much better....
ws
So does Anonymous Coward have good karma?
I believe that the government should use military force only when absolutely necessary.
While I was not a career man or an officer, I did spend eight years in the Marines.
Your attitude is pretty much the same as most of the guys I served with.
Funny, that.
Display some adaptability.
The creation of Israel was a colossal mistake. All of America's Middle East problems stem from this.
Return Israel to the Palestinians.
Americans shouldn't be interfering in the Middle East at all, and there is not the slightest reason for siding with Jews over Arabs.