Democratic Presidential Primaries 2008

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

Really?
Honestly I was surprised to read this after the 'needing to stay in Iraq' bit you were saying a couple pages back. I know you don't have to agree with every last detail of your favorite candidate's platform but getting out of Iraq asap and having a non-interventionist foreign policy was one of his major talking points.

edit: i guess that should say 'is one of his major talking points' seeing as how technically he hasn't ended his bid for the nomination yet.

Yep, its the only thing I disagree with what Paul is proposing.

Of course, just like any OTHER president, he wouldn't actually pull troops out tomorrow. Unless he wants to serve the quickest 4 year term in the history of the United States.

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by Azure

Yep, its the only thing I disagree with what Paul is proposing.

Of course, just like any OTHER president, he wouldn't actually pull troops out tomorrow. Unless he wants to serve the quickest 4 year term in the history of the United States.

I believe what he was saying (which I agree with by the way) is day 1 you don't completely pull every guy out but you start looking for and heading for the exit.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

I believe what he was saying (which I agree with by the way) is day 1 you don't completely pull every guy out but you start looking for and heading for the exit.

You can't let the enemies promote that you are looking to retreat.

It would be like McTavish saying to the media "if Calgary is really checking hard then we'll more or less pack it in." Disaster on every level.

[Phaneuf3]

On the other hand, this war was started to liberate the people of Iraq, right? (or was this for WMD's? I can't keep track of the goal of the week)

Assuming it was to liberate them... They've been liberated and police and government has been installed, equipped and trained for quite a while now. Eventually you have to let them stand on their own two feet. If leaving after achieving what you told the media you set out to do is retreating, these wars will never end. Its one of the things Ron Paul was very vocal about.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

On the other hand, this war was started to liberate the people of Iraq, right? (or was this for WMD's? I can't keep track of the goal of the week)

Assuming it was to liberate them... They've been liberated and police and government has been installed, equipped and trained for quite a while now. Eventually you have to let them stand on their own two feet. If leaving after achieving what you told the media you set out to do is retreating, these wars will never end. Its one of the things Ron Paul was very vocal about.

I agree, and eventually the US will leave.

The surge has worked so far despite all the Democrats trying to deny it, and the best thing to do right now is to keep at it.

More and more operations against the insurgants are being led by Iraqi forces.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Gozer

You can't let the enemies promote that you are looking to retreat.

It would be like McTavish saying to the media "if Calgary is really checking hard then we'll more or less pack it in." Disaster on every level.

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."

I know which one I choose--but in part that's because I think that morally you can't sacrifice the life of an 18 year old kid from Iowa to achieve a political objective on a distant shore--let along hundreds of 18 year old kids from Iowa. If I had made the decision that killed those kids (as a university teacher I can't help thinking of them as children) I would need serious help sleeping at night.

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by Azure

I agree, and eventually the US will leave.

The surge has worked so far despite all the Democrats trying to deny it, and the best thing to do right now is to keep at it.

More and more operations against the insurgants are being led by Iraqi forces.

Leaving on day 1 would be a bad idea but it needs to happen and should be relatively quickly. The Iraqis should be strong enough to deal with this independently. Also, knowing that the security blanket of the US army won't be there for '100 years if necessary' will give them the boot in the ass to get things together faster.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Not really. It's more like MacTavish saying "we'll go to the dressing room after we've played 60 minutes of hockey."

Unless there's overtime. Then what, you leave with the game tied?

I was 100% against this war because I had the foresight to see an ugly occupation with resentment everywhere. It wasn't going to be two armies marching toward each other until one lays down their guns and surrenders. It's an ugly bloodbath that needs years of selfless sacrifice from Americans to win.

The fact that America didn't see that coming is their own fault.

[notoepik]

Originally Posted by OilersBaby

Obama is definately the better of the 2 choices. It's who I voted for in the California primaries back in Feb. GO OBAMA!

I always thought you were Canadian

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Azure

I agree, and eventually the US will leave.

The surge has worked so far despite all the Democrats trying to deny it, and the best thing to do right now is to keep at it.

More and more operations against the insurgants are being led by Iraqi forces.

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. There's a pretty good analysis of the effects of the surge here:
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysi...baghdad-surge/

McCain, for all his "experience," has shown a shocking inability to comprehend the nuances of the foreign policy situation of the U.S. right now. He was unaware that the surge was still going on, routinely claims that Iran and Al Qaeda (mortal enemies) are in cahoots with one another, and sold his soul on a compromise with the White House over of all things, torture--you'd think that would be an important issue for him to stand firm on. Add to that his pandering to the Christian right when he had previously been a very secular politician, and his falling into lockstep with Bush in the past six years, and it amounts to a pretty distasteful candidacy in my view.

If that's "experience," I'll take the rookie, thanks very much.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Gozer

Unless there's overtime. Then what, you leave with the game tied?

I was 100% against this war because I had the foresight to see an ugly occupation with resentment everywhere. It wasn't going to be two armies marching toward each other until one lays down their guns and surrenders. It's an ugly bloodbath that needs years of selfless sacrifice from Americans to win.

The fact that America didn't see that coming is their own fault.

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.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

and his falling into lockstep with Bush in the past six years, and it amounts to a pretty distasteful candidacy in my view.

If that's "experience," I'll take the rookie, thanks very much.

Yes, 4 more years of Bush. I'm sure the Obama crowd is going to play that up big time in the general election campaign.

Can't wait.

[EddyBeers]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Obama in his speech said that McCain fails to acknowledge his achievements. What exactly are Obama's achievements?

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

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

and right now the cost is too high.

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.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by EddyBeers

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

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.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Azure

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.

I think you know that's unfair. Obviously it hits closer to home when it's young kids from close to where I live, but just as obviously lives are equally precious on both sides of the ocean. I also think your prediction of "millions" of deaths may be a little dire, but that's a matter of opinion--neither of us has a crystal ball.

I guess for me it comes down to this:
1. The U.S. has achieved its military objectives in Iraq.
2. The political objectives have taken longer to achieve, in part because they were never as well defined.
3. The long-term objective is an independent and democratic Iraq.
4. The military is the wrong tool for achieving this--which is why it hasn't yet succeeded.

Most importantly:
5. Unless you define the conditions for withdrawal, you'll never know if you've won the war.

One major problem of the continued occupation of Iraq is that the U.S. never decided what its victory conditions are. The occupation is truly open-ended because no-one will say what the correct conditions for withdrawal are. An open-ended occupation (which is what McCain advocates) is not just a belligerent foreign policy--it's a stupid and costly one. Even if you don't favour withdrawing now, a president must be able to say under what conditions he or she could withdraw. Not being able to answer the question is about as bad as not knowing the difference between Sunni and Shia. (another thing McCain has trouble with)

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by Azure

Yes, 4 more years of Bush. I'm sure the Obama crowd is going to play that up big time in the general election campaign.

Can't wait.

Correct me if I'm wrong but hasn't McCain's voting record been in line with Bush ~95% of the time?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

I think you know that's unfair. Obviously it hits closer to home when it's young kids from close to where I live, but just as obviously lives are equally precious on both sides of the ocean. I also think your prediction of "millions" of deaths may be a little dire, but that's a matter of opinion--neither of us has a crystal ball.

I guess for me it comes down to this:
1. The U.S. has achieved its military objectives in Iraq.
2. The political objectives have taken longer to achieve, in part because they were never as well defined.
3. The long-term objective is an independent and democratic Iraq.
4. The military is the wrong tool for achieving this--which is why it hasn't yet succeeded.

Most importantly:
5. Unless you define the conditions for withdrawal, you'll never know if you've won the war.

One major problem of the continued occupation of Iraq is that the U.S. never decided what its victory conditions are. The occupation is truly open-ended because no-one will say what the correct conditions for withdrawal are. An open-ended occupation (which is what McCain advocates) is not just a belligerent foreign policy--it's a stupid and costly one. Even if you don't favour withdrawing now, a president must be able to say under what conditions he or she could withdraw. Not being able to answer the question is about as bad as not knowing the difference between Sunni and Shia. (another thing McCain has trouble with)

The problem is that while military force may indeed by the wrong tool for completing political objectives, its pretty tough for the US to pull out with all the violence going on.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Azure

The problem is that while military force may indeed by the wrong tool for completing political objectives, its pretty tough for the US to pull out with all the violence going on.

The violence in Iraq was going on long before the US set up shot and will continue long after they are gone. Fact is the US will not win that war in Iraq - it's another Vietnam.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Azure

The problem is that while military force may indeed by the wrong tool for completing political objectives, its pretty tough for the US to pull out with all the violence going on.

Well, now if the "surge" were really working, then there wouldn't be much violence anymore, no?

For the record, I know that's not a completely fair argument--but there's something to be said for the notion of a scaled or phased withdrawal over a period of months that also provides practical and material assistance to Iraqi security forces. I'd argue that everyone agrees that the withdrawal of troops should be the objective (except for Mr. 100 years, I guess... ) but people disagree on the correct conditions for withdrawal. So--what are those conditions? Is the political solution on hold until the security situation is completely resolved? If so, that could mean an occupation of decades in length before political solutions can even be contemplated. I don't favour that, personally. I think the political solution needs to be accelerated, and if that can be done in conjunction with a phased withdrawal then I'm all for it.