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?

Comments

Define "Winning"

[tritonman]

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"

[Visaris]

Did we already win?

Mission Accomplished!

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"

[whencanistop]

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"

[Kozz]

It reminds me of a Bill O'Reilly appearance on Letterman (this was many months ago) when Bill asked Dave (paraphrased), "Don't you want to win [the war], Dave? It's a simple question!" To which Dave replied, "But it's not a simple question, because I'm thoughtful."

Re:Define "Winning"

[MightyYar]

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"

[Fizzog]

"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:Obama?

[dunkelfalke]

Actually, Al-Quaida endorses McCain.

Re:No Contest

[propellerhead_prime]

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.

War is Good for the Wallet of the American Soldier

[phmadore]

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.

Re:Obama?

[log1385]

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.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Obama?

[lordofthechia]

"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?