Not really. It's more like MacTavish saying "we'll go to the dressing room after we've played 60 minutes of hockey."
Drawing down troops is only a sign of defeat if you're doing it because you've failed to achieve a military objective. The U.S. achieved its military objective and is now seeking to achieve a political objective using the military as a tool. That's like using a bulldozer to plant a garden--wrong tool for the right job.
In the meantime, the U.S.' continued presence in Iraq costs hundreds of billions of dollars in taxpayers' money and unfortunately has cost thousands of young men and women in the Allied forces their lives along with tens of thousands of Iraqis. Stay, and you can expect more of the same.
The choice isn't "stay for 100 years or leave to-morrow." It's "stay the course of the Bush administration, which thinks it can use the military to create political stability in Iraq in the long term, or find other solutions to this complex problem while drawing down troop levels in order to save the U.S. the heavy burden of paying for this war with both money and live."
Staying the course is the only positive endgame for the US now. I don't think there has to be the levels of troops we see now for very much longer and certainly the Iraqi troops will continue to do more of the dangerous work.
Iraq is over the hump and is fast becoming a workable democracy. They have something like a half a million man army that is starting to take on the brunt of the security work. Their government has already started debating what long term presence they should allow the Americans. Some would prefer that no US presence remain while others have no problem with a couple air bases(under certain conditions). Right now the government is debating on who to allow to expand their oil production. It's projected that they may have untapped reserves equal to Saudi Arabia. The options on the table include two or three American companies, the largest British oil company, or starting their own. The benefit of partnering with a foreign company is the speed in which they could develop the resources. A national company(whether state or privately owned) would take longer to start bringing in revenue.
Imagine a stable Iraq with the GDP of Saudi Arabia and a democratic government concerned with the welfare of its own people. They would have the same headaches as America has when it comes to illegal immigration. As Iraq prospers the dictators around them would begin having more domestic issues as their people become dissatisfied with their comparative level of prosperity. This was Bush's dream and yes the price in America lives was too much and it should never have been tried. But it was begun by Bush and the cost now of cutting and running is greater than staying for the short time it will take to finish.
America should negotiate to have at least two large air bases established that would remain after the bulk of American forces leave as well. This would benefit both US and Iraqi interests. I do disagree with Ron Paul on his stance of American non-intervention. If America stops being the world's big brother another nation will replace her and the world(including America) will be far worse off for it. America should just avoid ground wars and nation building whenever possible.
His involvement was said to be minimal according to the Ethics committee who investigated the event.
Of course, still doesn't make what happened right, but I have this strange feeling that if McCain would have been seriously involved, his political career would have ended back in 1989.
Well, I still think it was an outstanding accomplishment for Mr. Ethics.
- Keating raised money for him in 1982 and 1984 for his congressional elections
- McCain received the most amount of money from Keating out of all of the Keating 5 in terms of political donations
- McCain and family went on 9 trips on the Keating dime, including 3 to Keating's Bahamas retreat with his close pal Mr. Keating
- McCain refused to disclose these trips, as per House rules, until the scandal broke
- The ethics committee said he and Glenn were the least blameworthy, the fact of the matter is that they got their chunk of meat, and could let McCain and Glenn go. They certainly did not exonerate him, as McCain likes to say
nonetheless, I think that that was a shining moment for Mr. Ethics, a moment made more poignant by the lobbyists near total control of his current fundraising efforts, in contrast to Obama
Well I wish that Obama would have quoted McCain's biggest achievement, the Lincoln Savings and Loan scandal....McCain has a good track record of trying to keep insolvent banks alive after they have made foolish loans under a real estate bubble.....just the guy the US needs right now
So you don't know of anything Obama has accomplished. Does his resume begin and end with; Helped fund pet projects of my racist friends and mentors?
Well, now if the "surge" were really working, then there wouldn't be much violence anymore, no?
The surge is making things 'better'....but only because of the political progress being made too. What a lot of people are forgetting is that Gen. Petraeus has taken a completely different approach to solving the problem than his predecessors did. It was a screwup politically from the get-go. Which isn't surprising considering that Robert Gates was one of the people in charge.
So you don't know of anything Obama has accomplished. Does his resume begin and end with; Helped fund pet projects of my racist friends and mentors?
Here is a small list of bills he sponsored or co-sponsored
1) Ethics Reform, most comprehensive ever according to Wash Post. Creates a searchable database for earmarks, government grants and contracts, tightened limits on donations from lobbyists
2) Lugar-OBama initiative on nuclear warheads, increaesd the capture and storage of loose nucs, also increased the capture and destruction of loose conventional weapons
3) Bill putting strict limits on no bid contracts after natural disasters
4) Bill requirng special planning before a disaster for the evacuation of special needs individuals and seniors
5) Bill creating a Family Reunificaiton search and locator program after natural disasters
6) Bill to mandate the US involvement in creation of security and democracy in Congo
7) A bill to increase education and innovation in the US to help compete in the global economy
8) A bill to amend the Energy Policy Act to capture carbon and store it, along with R & D
9) Bill to strengthen gift bans and limits from lobbyists
10) A bill requiring Congressional committees to have audio or visual recordings of their proceedings available to the public within 14 days of the hearing
11) Bill to prevent members of COngress from lobbying after they leave Congress
12) Bill to increase funding to local law enforcement
13) Bill to provide rehabilitative services to vets with brain injuries
There are many more, but I hope this helps on your readily apparent attempt to make an informed decision on Senator Obama's candidacy...
I guess I think that's a little cold-blooded. I've taught Iraq war vets who've written in informal writings about their experiences, and I've had students who've lost friends in this war. Iowa has a lot of enlisted people--and let me tell you--these kids didn't choose anything. All they did was answer the call of their country and lay down their lives for it. Do we really need to continue the bloodbath just because GW Bush is an idiot?
I just can't shrug my shoulders and say "well, I guess that's tough!" I've seen too much of the human cost of this--and what I've seen is the tiniest fraction of the total package. It would be one thing if the chickenhawks behind this war were laying down their own lives, or if the American people were themselves asked to sacrifice anything for this war. But the burden is being born by young, promising men and women, some of whom are having their lives cut short in the process. They leave behind grieving families, children, mothers, wives, husbands, who all have to find some way of making sense of their deaths. "George Bush made a mistake" just isn't good enough. Either there's a rationale for why these kids are dying or it just isn't worth it. It's not about victory and defeat--it's about the balance between objectives and the cost to achieve them--and right now the cost is too high.
You're talking like we can stop this travesty now. If America cut & ran, they would lose less troops, true. But the entire mid-east would be plunged into a chaotic battle for power, where the most ruthless murderers would take control of the gov't, implement martial law, and flourish with Iraqi oil money. Leaving would result in many more Iraqis having their homes, families and lives destroyed.
Why don't they count?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Azure
I agree, the cost is always too high.
Losing 50,000 troops in Vietnam was horrible.....2 million people dying afterwards because the US left was even worse.
If we're going to look at 'cost'....why not look at the complete picture?
Unless of course you care more about a few thousand American soldiers being killed than you do about millions of Iraqi's dying.
If the States withdraws and the Iraqi's fall into a civil war that kills millions, well there is only so much you can do before it starts to impact your own survival. The USA is watching their economy fall apart on different fronts and they can no longer afford this war. This won't only effect North America as todays global economy effects everyone even China.
If the States withdraws and the Iraqi's fall into a civil war that kills millions, well there is only so much you can do before it starts to impact your own survival. The USA is watching their economy fall apart on different fronts and they can no longer afford this war. This won't only effect North America as todays global economy effects everyone even China.
You're talking like we can stop this travesty now. If America cut & ran, they would lose less troops, true. But the entire mid-east would be plunged into a chaotic battle for power, where the most ruthless murderers would take control of the gov't, implement martial law, and flourish with Iraqi oil money. Leaving would result in many more Iraqis having their homes, families and lives destroyed.
Why don't they count?
Bang on.
So let me get this straight: your argument is that although the Iraq war is an unmitigated disaster, the U.S. should not create a timeline for withdrawal under any circumstances, because to do so might plunge the entire middle east into a chaotic battle for power? The U.S. should continue to occupy Iraq--an open-ended occupation--because even though they will not achieve their objectives through occupation, the potential outcomes of withdrawal could be really, really bad?
I guess we disagree on the hypothetical future, then. Let me just suggest that the situation in the middle east is complex and is affected by more than just U.S. military power.
But more importantly, aren't we talking about sticking your thumb in the dike at this point? To me it's not enough to say that American troops are preventing civil war in Iraq--especially since it's not clear that they are. If the occupation has no objective, and no endpoint--then the lives of all the Americans and allied forces that have been killed AND all of those Iraqis that you claim I'm forgetting to consider have been sacrificed in vain. There has to be a rationale that isn't just sticking your thumb in the dike. There has to be a real, tangible objective, otherwise this whole thing really is senseless.
Just leaving troops there at any cost to prevent some hypothetical future disaster is not an acceptable rationale.
Not in my life but in the so called real world, yes. Somebodies got to pay for the soldiers and their equipment and if you don't have the money and can't borrow anymore, what are you going to do?
Not in my life but in the so called real world, yes. Somebodies got to pay for the soldiers and their equipment and if you don't have the money and can't borrow anymore, what are you going to do?
Stop mailing checks to people so they can buy xboxs.
So let me get this straight: your argument is that although the Iraq war is an unmitigated disaster, the U.S. should not create a timeline for withdrawal under any circumstances, because to do so might plunge the entire middle east into a chaotic battle for power? The U.S. should continue to occupy Iraq--an open-ended occupation--because even though they will not achieve their objectives through occupation, the potential outcomes of withdrawal could be really, really bad?
If you consider defeat inevitable, you're right.
Since I think these noble sacrifices by American troops will serve a greater good, I disagree with the premise that this is an open-ended occupation. America will outlast their enemies until Iraq is strong enough to defend itself.
As long as the enemies are sure America is about to surrender, they're not about to quit. That's what McCain and I think whereas you and Obama seem to think we're delaying inevitable defeat.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan
Just leaving troops there at any cost to prevent some hypothetical future disaster is not an acceptable rationale.
Tell me what you're endgame is. If America did what you please, what would be happening in 5 years?
(I don't mean that as a condescending comment, it may sound like it. I just rarely get an answer to that question)
All the so-called "surge" has revealed is that troop levels were too low to begin with. Saying the surge is "working" amounts to an admission that Bush's initial occupation strategy was a failure.
It's funny how we've all forgotten that the surge was supposed to be a temporary increase in troop numbers that would achieve a permanent increase in stability in Iraq. What it has achieved is nominally better stability in the regions where the brigades were added--which is not really all that surprising--and again merely shows that there were too few troops on the ground to begin with. However--very tellingly--the security situation has not improved to the extent that any return to pre-surge levels is being seriously contemplated. If anything, the military needs more troops in order to achieve security in all regions of Iraq in order to duplicate the very modest results of the surge everywhere.
We've got conflicting information here. My understanding is that 3/5ths of the surge troops have already headed for home without being replace. The last 2 brigades involved in the surge are coming home at the end of next month and the good General believes more can go home before years end. So far he has been nothing but right on. Last month was the lowest month for casualties for the Americans since 2004.
Here is a small list of bills he sponsored or co-sponsored
1) Ethics Reform, most comprehensive ever according to Wash Post. Creates a searchable database for earmarks, government grants and contracts, tightened limits on donations from lobbyists
2) Lugar-OBama initiative on nuclear warheads, increaesd the capture and storage of loose nucs, also increased the capture and destruction of loose conventional weapons
3) Bill putting strict limits on no bid contracts after natural disasters
4) Bill requirng special planning before a disaster for the evacuation of special needs individuals and seniors
5) Bill creating a Family Reunificaiton search and locator program after natural disasters
6) Bill to mandate the US involvement in creation of security and democracy in Congo
7) A bill to increase education and innovation in the US to help compete in the global economy
8) A bill to amend the Energy Policy Act to capture carbon and store it, along with R & D
9) Bill to strengthen gift bans and limits from lobbyists
10) A bill requiring Congressional committees to have audio or visual recordings of their proceedings available to the public within 14 days of the hearing
11) Bill to prevent members of COngress from lobbying after they leave Congress
12) Bill to increase funding to local law enforcement
13) Bill to provide rehabilitative services to vets with brain injuries
There are many more, but I hope this helps on your readily apparent attempt to make an informed decision on Senator Obama's candidacy...
Not many "tough calls" in there. Looks more like resume building than a political platform. It's much easier to focus on increased spending for "how could you oppose" humanitarian issues like finding family after a hurricane than it is to balance budgets and reduce gov't waste.
How about we put together a list of "abstain" votes on hotly contested issues?
Stop mailing checks to people so they can buy xboxs.
Speaking of similar tactics:
so.... how bout that proposed gas tax holiday. Which candidates support it? Which don't? What do economists and experts say about it?
Speaking of similar tactics:
so.... how bout that proposed gas tax holiday. Which candidates support it? Which don't? What do economists and experts say about it?
Makes a good sound bite, "I want you to save money." but little else.
Fundamentally, it's a supply/demand issue. The world wants more oil and supply can't keep up (in part because American environmentalists are blocking more drilling).
There's other factors like speculators driving the price up further, but that's an element of a commodity where supply doesn't meet demand.
The gov't makes more on gas than oil companies, but reducing their cut (lower prices) will only increase demand - so the market will continue to adjust by driving prices up. It may help a little, but not enough to matter.
