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?
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.
My blog
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.
Thomas Galvin
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.
"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"
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
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?
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
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...
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.
I think that the first muslim american president will bring peace to the middle east.
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.
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.
So rise up, all ye lost ones, as one, we'll claw the clouds.
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.
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.
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.
Monstar L
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?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
You know??? For the 13 original colonies? Slashdot's icon is missing a red stripe at the top.
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.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
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.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
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.
I've been just watching the political discussions from the sidelines, sort of keeping my mouth shut, but the thing that really gets me is that when it comes to politicans people think in black and white, or in other words; republican vs. democrats.
Its as if the country is completely unaware of third party candidates, such as Ralph Nader, and nobody really cares about what they think.
IMHO America is really a two-party duopoly and the little man has no chance to get his ideas out, let alone making office.
Sure, its a bit off-topic but I'm hoping this thread might get people talking about independents and what they've expressed about the issues; such as this one (the war).
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.
I am not a crackpot.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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?
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
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.
Sigh. Nice job conflating Iraq and 9/11. As has been shown time and time again, 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, gain some political capital as a "wartime president", and (while he was at it) grab a lot of Iraqi oil for his buddies.
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.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The Battle of Antietam (also known as the Battle of Sharpsburg, particularly in the South), fought on September 17, 1862, near Sharpsburg, Maryland, and Antietam Creek, as part of the Maryland Campaign, was the first major battle in the American Civil War to take place on Northern soil. It was the bloodiest single-day battle in American history, with about 23,000 casualties. ------ Casualty estimates from the battle vary widely. The official U.S. account lists 80,987 American casualties, while other estimates range from 70,000 to 104,000. Most of the American casualties occurred within the first three days of battle, when two of the U.S. 106th Infantry Divisionâ(TM)s three regiments were forced to surrender. The Battle of the Bulge was the bloodiest of the battles that U.S. forces experienced in World War II; the 19,000 American dead were unsurpassed by those of any other engagement ------------ 4,119 dead as of July 15th 2008. As of March 2008 there were 8,914 wounded requiring medical air transport. 20,416 wounded did not require medical air transport. Of all the wounded 13,109 were unable to return to duty within 72 hours. Medical air transport was required for an additional 8,273 for non-hostile injuries, and for 23,052 for diseases or other medical conditions. That last one is from the current FOUR YEARS in Iraq.
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!
I drank what? -- Socrates
I caught a piece on NPR this morning stating that there had been a McCain in every American war. They said that McCain had a very real understanding of how war affects Americans.
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.
Note that Kamerschen didn't pen this. See his website. Also, there's a difference between taking all of someone's revenue, and taking a certain percentage. The discussion is around what the percentage is.
Nice strawman, though.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
I am curious as to what people think about McCain's opinion against Obama telegraphing his punches so to speak? This came up in one of the debates. None of the media really touched on it, that I read, but I think it shows a serious character flaw in the mind of McCain maybe even our military thinking. Here is the quote: "But the point is that I know how to handle these crises. And Sen. Obama, by saying that he would attack Pakistan, look at the context of his words. I'll get Osama bin Laden, my friends. I'll get him. I know how to get him. I'll get him no matter what and I know how to do it. But I'm not going to telegraph my punches, which is what Sen. Obama did. " McCain sounds as if his whole tactic is to sneak up behind someone, slap them in the ear and kick them while they are down. Isn't that wrong of him to imply that? Isn't that simply being sneaky or shady about what his true intentions are? I don't understand that kind of mentality. I think it's dishonorable. Our great nation should be well above that that kind of tactic. We should be able to go to a country diplomatically and say hey im going to bomb your borders to get some bad guys. You can go along with us and help or stay out of the way. If you fight us not only the bad guys will be in trouble, so will you. Sure we don't need to "telegraph" them specifics, troop numbers equipment etc, but giving them a fair warning, I believe, is more then warranted. The reason I say this is let them put up their defenses, let them prepare for it and then when we come in and blow a giant hole through their lines and get our target it will not only demean them it will show who does have the most power. That kind of tactic hurts their defenses and their egos, not the ooh "dam he got me while I wasn't looking but ill get him back mentality" that we seem to be creating currently.
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?
The long-lasting war that NO ONE SEEMS TO BE TALKING ABOUT, that costs us billions and billions, and puts such an incredibly huge percentage of our population behind bars. Over 800,000 Americans arrested JUST LAST YEAR for JUST marijuana offenses. This is a travesty and it needs to end! Why the hell isn't anyone TALKING About it in this damn election! Joshua
When in danger or in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout!
Wow....that's just....wow. Let's see here....
Wow, he knows this guy? Holy cow. Imagine if he had donated $800,000 to this guy, I bet that would sink his chances to be president. Man, that would be amazing if a presidential candidate did that. Oh..um, wait a minute, it appears that Senator McCain may have done that actually: McCain also has ties to Khalidi through a group that Khalidi helped found 15 years ago. The Center for Palestine Research and Studies has received more than $800,000 from an organization that McCain chairs. Well, now I guess you can't vote for him either.
McCain has apparently been endorsed by Al Queda. You know what? Neither one of them have anything to do with nutjobs crawling out of the woodwork and talking about them. I don't hold the Hamas thing against Obama, and I don't hold the Al Queda thing against McCain.
We're taking Qadhafi's word for things now? So when Qadhafi tells us that the U.S. is an evil nation and it should perish, are you on board with that too, or just when he says something you find politically useful?
Yes, actually, when you record everything that someone says every time they speak you eventually catch them saying something that they didn't mean to say. Recently McCain was speaking in Pennsylvania, where he suggested that the Democrats were saying Pennsylvanians are racist. His comment was "And I couldn't agree with them more". Clearly he didn't mean to say that, but in your view he apparantly did mean it, and it was a "Freudian slip". You know what though, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and a mistake is just a mistake.
Umm, psst...Hey, superyooser. Obama isn't an arab. I know, the name thing can be confusing, really, but he's really not actually arabic.
Okay, being worried about Obama
Some bring out the best in others, some the worst. Some bring out far more.