Is anyone else disappointed and worried about the Dem. presidential canadates?

[Jman06]

First lets look at last times...Al Gore and JOhn Kerry. Are you kidding me. These two are soo stiff and have no personality. Are those really the best two canadates they could come up with? I was angry about that last election. So now i'm looking at the new ones this year. We have hilary who wont win and Obama who also wont win. For one they wont win over the red states and two a lot of people wont vote for a woman or african american.....FOR PRESIDENT.

What ever happened to a candate like Bill Clinton? WHy cant they find that? Senator Evan Bayh would have been perfect but no one knew him yet or wanted to promote him and it makes me mad. All this energy is beign devoted to minority canadates because they make good news and chat but they wont actually win. I'm just afraid if they keep this up the Republicans will win again because they will be the best choice.

[and1grad]

First lets look at last times...Al Gore and JOhn Kerry. Are you kidding me. These two are soo stiff and have no personality. Are those really the best two canadates they could come up with? I was angry about that last election. So now i'm looking at the new ones this year. We have hilary who wont win and Obama who also wont win. For one they wont win over the red states and two a lot of people wont vote for a woman or african american.....FOR PRESIDENT.

What ever happened to a candate like Bill Clinton? WHy cant they find that? Senator Evan Bayh would have been perfect but no one knew him yet or wanted to promote him and it makes me mad. All this energy is beign devoted to minority canadates because they make good news and chat but they wont actually win. I'm just afraid if they keep this up the Republicans will win again because they will be the best choice.
Personally, I wasnt disappointed with either Al Gore or John Kerry. I thought they would've made fine Presidents. They both seemed very knowledgeable to me. They just made the mistake of not fighting fire with fire. Politics isnt a battle you can win by taking the moral high ground. Kerry learned that the hard way.

I'm also not disappointed with either Hillary or Barack running this time. I'm not sure they can win but I think it does say something that a woman and a black man at least have a CHANCE. That alone is meaningful to me. Also, the energy isnt being devoted to them because they make good news. I think you should take a minute and find out what these people, ESPECIALLY Barack Obama, are about before you label them as some kind of sideshow.

[wordsmith]

I'm actually pretty excited, thus far.

[wordsmith]

Personally, I wasnt disappointed with either Al Gore or John Kerry. I thought they would've made fine Presidents. They both seemed very knowledgeable to me. They just made the mistake of not fighting fire with fire. Politics isnt a battle you can win by taking the moral high ground. Kerry learned that the hard way.

I'm also not disappointed with either Hillary or Barack running this time. I'm not sure they can win but I think it does say something that a woman and a black man at least have a CHANCE. That alone is meaningful to me. Also, the energy isnt being devoted to them because they make good news. I think you should take a minute and find out what these people, ESPECIALLY Barack Obama, are about before you label them as some kind of sideshow.

For exactly these reasons.

[Jman06]

Personally, I wasnt disappointed with either Al Gore or John Kerry. I thought they would've made fine Presidents. They both seemed very knowledgeable to me. They just made the mistake of not fighting fire with fire. Politics isnt a battle you can win by taking the moral high ground. Kerry learned that the hard way.

I'm also not disappointed with either Hillary or Barack running this time. I'm not sure they can win but I think it does say something that a woman and a black man at least have a CHANCE. That alone is meaningful to me. Also, the energy isnt being devoted to them because they make good news. I think you should take a minute and find out what these people, ESPECIALLY Barack Obama, are about before you label them as some kind of sideshow.


Barack has almost no experience. I just really think that neither will win. At that level they should all have the same high qualifications. AFter that its all about carisma and how likeable they are.

[and1grad]

Barack has almost no experience. I just really think that neither will win. At that level they should all have the same high qualifications. AFter that its all about carisma and how likeable they are.
How's the "experienced" administration doing for us so far?

[wordsmith]

Do you like Evan Bayh for reasons other than being from Indiana, and if so, why, and what makes him heads and tails ahead of any you mentioned?

[emmyb]

I'm psyched for Barrack Obama. I think he is so passionate and has such charisma. Not disappointed with him at all.

[Jman06]

Well I guess time will tell! Just remember my post when hilary and obama dont get elected.

[wordsmith]

Well I guess time will tell! Just remember my post when hilary and obama dont get elected.

Remember what? That you were disappointed with the choices? No offense, but why would that matter to anybody?

[PenforPrez]

First lets look at last times...Al Gore and JOhn Kerry. Are you kidding me. These two are soo stiff and have no personality. Are those really the best two canadates they could come up with? I was angry about that last election. So now i'm looking at the new ones this year. We have hilary who wont win and Obama who also wont win. For one they wont win over the red states and two a lot of people wont vote for a woman or african american.....FOR PRESIDENT.

This nation is so politically divided that hoping to make inroads in the solidly red states is a waste of breath. If God ran on the Democratic ticket, I doubt He would win anything beyond Arkansas in the South.

I loved Al Gore, but he was a polarizing figure due to being part of the Clinton administration. That and Bush thought more on the level of the average American, sad to say. Americans aren't as smart as we like to think. Kerry was a Northeastern liberal, and the Democrats should have known better.

Hillary and Obama can't win because the Republicans will successfully paint them as liberals. A perceived liberal will not win the 2008 election. A liberal cannot win Missouri and probably not Ohio. I see those two states as deciding the show. If they can't win there, forget it.

Which leaves John Edwards. Who couldn't win anything in the South despite being a Southerner. That whole populism bit of his will play better in the Rust Belt than it will in the South. I want to know if it'll be enough to swing Ohio to the Democrats. Edwards is popular in Missouri; I think he would win here.

I am disappointed in the Democratic candidates. There's no Southern moderates, save Edwards. Mark Warner wouldn't run; he would have picked up Virginia, and that would have tipped the scales totally to the Democrats. Evan Bayh (the Midwestern equivalent thereof) wouldn't run, and he's the only Democrat they couldn't accuse of being soft on terrorism. Too bad Harold Ford didn't win the Senate race in Tennessee; his time will come though. :)

Barack has almost no experience. I just really think that neither will win. At that level they should all have the same high qualifications. AFter that its all about carisma and how likeable they are.

Ronald Reagan had only been governor of California for eight years before being elected President. Jimmy Carter had only been governor of Georgia for four. GWB spent half of his life as a drunk before turning Texas into a Third World country. Experience counts for less than it used to, sad to say.

Paul

[wordsmith]

Seriously, I just have to go back to the title of this thread, because it startles me so much. This is the first election season in my memory since I became a voting adult that I've had a shred of hope or excitement about anything. So it really seems foreign to me that others are disappointed. I've felt rejuvenated in spirit ever since the midterm elections, and I didn't think I'd ever feel happy about politics again.

[PenforPrez]

Seriously, I just have to go back to the title of this thread, because it startles me so much. This is the first election season in my memory since I became a voting adult that I've had a shred of hope or excitement about anything. So it really seems foreign to me that others are disappointed. I've felt rejuvenated in spirit ever since the midterm elections, and I didn't think I'd ever feel happy about politics again.

That was the feeling I had when I discovered Howard Dean. :) Somebody was finally saying what needed to be said. His ideology was as close to mine as it comes, so I was excited. Dean is now DNC chairman, so my instincts were good, if nothing else.

Paul

[and1grad]

Seriously, I just have to go back to the title of this thread, because it startles me so much. This is the first election season in my memory since I became a voting adult that I've had a shred of hope or excitement about anything. So it really seems foreign to me that others are disappointed. I've felt rejuvenated in spirit ever since the midterm elections, and I didn't think I'd ever feel happy about politics again.
Sad isnt it? People dont hope for the right person, they're just worried about what State he/she may or may not win. That being the case, you'd might as well either be happy with whatever happens or miserable about it.

[wordsmith]

Sad isnt it? People dont hope for the right person, they're just worried about what State he/she may or may not win. That being the case, you'd might as well either be happy with whatever happens or miserable about it.

I'm just so glad to for the first time ever in my voting memory, see somebody who is truly speaking about issues that personally matter to me and to many of my peers, in an accessible, relatable manner, seems to embrace values to which I can say, "right on," and seems to be somebody I can deeply identify with, respect, and admire. That makes me anything but disappointed.

[Syracuse]

I still haven't decided who I like more than Hillary. I thought Hillary would be great a few years ago but now I admit Obama is looking good, have to learn more about him but yes he has the "it" factor. You know he has "it". Can't describe it just seems presidential, while I can see why Hillary rubs some the wrong way, the whole sticking by Bill thing seems like she did it for power. Do you think if she divorced Bill she'd get to be senator let alone president? A lot of Bill's supporters transferred directly to her, a lot of people really loved Bill. Kind of amazing that Obama has been able to start from not much to being in the sentence with Hillary as presidential hopefuls.

[wordsmith]

I liked Bill, and I've never really liked Hillary.

[capella]

I'm sorry to say that I am also disappointed. Not because I don't think the people running are great and all (well, I'm no big fan of Hilary Clinton), but because I really don't think any of the people running for the Dems thus far can win.

I am very concerned that we will end up with the same kind of Bush-like bozos running the country for the next 4 to 8 years and it makes me a little sick inside. I am very disappointed in the direction our country is headed and I would like to see a democrat running for president who has a shot in hell at winning. I think a lot of the hoopla around Obama will fizzle out (sorry to his fans) and I think Hilary will steam roll anyone in her path, despite the fact that she isn't going to win the race in the end. She just isn't.

I sincerely hope that I am wrong in being pessimistic about it, but I really don't think the dems are going to win again at this rate. We'll be stuck with more neo-conservative nonsense and that makes me afraid for our future as a nation.

[PeakDream]

I can't stand any of the candidates, republican or democrat. I don't really like Hillary, although I like the fact that she has become more of a pragmatist than Obama. I don't know if I like Obama because he reminds me of JFK, or dislike him because of JFK. Honestly, I just want a government that works for a living, that means we need to get rid of those congressional bums.

[dacrunkest]

I don't see a huge connection between JFK and Obama...Obama is young like JFK, but so was Bill Clinton. JFK was from a legacy family in blue-blooded Boston. Maybe Obama shares a vision of the future of this nation that JFK had in 1960 (but I really can't speculate on that...JFK was killed when my mother was a child...)

I think Barak Obama is by far the best candidate. Also, I don't see anyone that the Republicans are putting up that is all that great...plus, I think the Republican party may experience another backlash in 2008...this administration's approval rating is in the crapper (rightfully so, IMO).

Hillary is meh...I'd vote for her if I had to, but I don't really want to.

Does anyone remember who John Edwards is anymore?

Joe Biden has no shot.

Kucinich is running again...he didn't get through the first three primaries in 2004.

I really don't know much about Tom Vilsack, but I could see him being a sleeper...

[wordsmith]

plus, I think the Republican party may experience another backlash in 2008...this administration's approval rating is in the crapper (rightfully so, IMO).


One can always hope.

The midterm election gave me hope.

[wordsmith]

I don't see a huge connection between JFK and Obama...Obama is young like JFK, but so was Bill Clinton. JFK was from a legacy family in blue-blooded Boston. Maybe Obama shares a vision of the future of this nation that JFK had in 1960 (but I really can't speculate on that...JFK was killed when my mother was a child...)



I think the JFK thing is kind of cliche and a stretch. Young, popular, handsome, charismatic, and latched onto by the media because of this is really about a far as it goes. Oh, and they both authored books that gained acclaim while in the Senate. Background-wise, couldn't be more different. Newsweek online wrote this about the supposed comparison:

They obviously come from different ends of the American experience. Kennedy’s father was a millionaire and ambassador to England. He grew up knowing all the right people. Obama’s father was a foreign-exchange student and the son of a Kenyan goat herder who left Obama’s mother (a white Kansan) shortly after his birth. Obama arrived in Chicago after college knowing no one and with little money."

[redav]

The next election is the Dems to loose. But so was the last one. And the one before that, too.

Despite all the hot button issues, the Dems & Reps aren't all that different. Compare either one to a party that really is different (Green, Libertarian, anything from the rest of the world, etc) and you'll see that they agree on most things--it's just that those things never make the news, and they turn everything into an opportunity to disagree just so they can differentiate themselves.

Consequently, we're not going to see radical changes in policy regardless who gets elected. Sure, things will be different, as they always are with any new administration, but my life isn't going to be effected much.

For me, the biggest qualifier is whether I can trust the candidate. Is he/she the type of person who, if the given the opportunity and no chance of getting caught, would screw someone (read: me) over for personal gain? Personal integrity is more important than specific strategies or policies.

I've been impressed with Obama. He's been level-headed and hasn't gotten himself into any stupid situations like most seem to do. (Are politicians really so stupid that they can't avoid this?) I would like to think that most Americans are past the race issue far enough that it wouldn't affect their vote, but I know better. There are at least as many people who would vote against Hillary as for her. Surely she knows this. As far as the rest, it's too early to get my feather's ruffled.

[Xander]

Despite all the hot button issues, the Dems & Reps aren't all that different. Compare either one to a party that really is different (Green, Libertarian, anything from the rest of the world, etc)
The rest of the world thinks this too, apparently (from what people have told me on my travels). As I've always said, if you want change, vote third party. But Obama gets my vote unless he's a clear landslide in IL. If that's the case, Libertarians get my vote.

[PeakDream]

Eh, I'm not impressed with Obama yet, he has to put up some good polcies before I would consider him. As far as the comparison between him and JFK, forge the background for the moment. They both are smarter than their peers, prettier than their peers, better educated than their peers, and more ambitious than their peers.
Like JFK, Obama can win a lot of diplomatic victories for the US. Personally, I'm concerned with domestic issues more than international ones.

[dongle]

I truly believe Bush won because people "liked" him, never mind he couldnt talk, had a crappy leadership record, and had a ton of ties to wealthy special interest groups, people thought he looked good and seemed like an average joe from the local bar. How nice that people want the average joe from the local bar to be president.

Hillary and Obama cant win in this country. I'm sorry but there are just too many people that still dont believe women should be out in the workforce, much less president, and that Barack Hussein Obama shouldnt be allowed in this country since he's "practically a terrorist". Most democrats know better and will vote for one of these candidates based on issues rather than appearance or stigma. But not every democrat and certainly not a significant number of republicans.

Somebody mentioned Howard Dean before and I agree I really like him and thought he was the kind of candidate who would have a shot at energizing the average joe american. Funny though how even in the more enlightened democratic crowd something like a scream of excitement can destroy a double digit lead in the polls. Enthusiasm can be dangerous when you're dealing with idiot americans. Hence we were left with Kerry who was destroyed for not showing enough enthusiasm and boring people with "long winded answers". Silly him, actually answering questions, someone should have told him to just blow smoke and use catchy buzz words. Worked for bush.

Dont blame politics on the candidates. They are all very capable people. Not just this election but every election. Blame politics on the general public, on forums like this, on ourselves. It's disgusting to see so many people focus on the trivial and ignore the important. It's disgusting to see so many people base their vote on one single issue like abortion or gay rights and ignore all the many issues that a future president will have to deal with on a day to day basis. People blame the media for only reporting some things and focusing on stupid stuff like who anna nicoles father might be. But really the media is just reporting what people want to know about. Stop wanting to know about anna nicole smith and I gurantee they will stop reporting it.

I'm not blaming everyone else, I know I do it too. We can never know everything about every issue and exactly what choice is best, but we can at least try to focus on the bigger picture and what's important. This forum is actually very good about that so when I say "we" it's we the general public.

[wordsmith]

Blame politics on the general public.

I've been saying this for a while. You get what you ask for (and what you vote for, and what you don't bother to educate yourself about).

[dengeist]

I truly believe Bush won because people "liked" him, never mind he couldnt talk, had a crappy leadership record, and had a ton of ties to wealthy special interest groups, people thought he looked good and seemed like an average joe from the local bar. How nice that people want the average joe from the local bar to be president.

Hillary and Obama cant win in this country. I'm sorry but there are just too many people that still dont believe women should be out in the workforce, much less president, and that Barack Hussein Obama shouldnt be allowed in this country since he's "practically a terrorist". Most democrats know better and will vote for one of these candidates based on issues rather than appearance or stigma. But not every democrat and certainly not a significant number of republicans.

Somebody mentioned Howard Dean before and I agree I really like him and thought he was the kind of candidate who would have a shot at energizing the average joe american. Funny though how even in the more enlightened democratic crowd something like a scream of excitement can destroy a double digit lead in the polls. Enthusiasm can be dangerous when you're dealing with idiot americans. Hence we were left with Kerry who was destroyed for not showing enough enthusiasm and boring people with "long winded answers". Silly him, actually answering questions, someone should have told him to just blow smoke and use catchy buzz words. Worked for bush.

Dont blame politics on the candidates. They are all very capable people. Not just this election but every election. Blame politics on the general public, on forums like this, on ourselves. It's disgusting to see so many people focus on the trivial and ignore the important. It's disgusting to see so many people base their vote on one single issue like abortion or gay rights and ignore all the many issues that a future president will have to deal with on a day to day basis. People blame the media for only reporting some things and focusing on stupid stuff like who anna nicoles father might be. But really the media is just reporting what people want to know about. Stop wanting to know about anna nicole smith and I gurantee they will stop reporting it.

I'm not blaming everyone else, I know I do it too. We can never know everything about every issue and exactly what choice is best, but we can at least try to focus on the bigger picture and what's important. This forum is actually very good about that so when I say "we" it's we the general public.


I agree and disagree. I particularly agree with the Bush comments, because I think he did win because he was more likeable and nonthreatining. Looks can be deceiving though. He looked like a putz to me from the beginning. I also agree with the weird focus on issues that have little bearing on day to day life.

I disagree though on Hillary or Obama having a chance of winning. It's that kind of mentality that will never change the way things are. It's part of the reason we are stuck with an unofficial two-party system and go with the "lesser of the two evils" when voting. Change is good.

[Millenial]

The rest of the world thinks this too, apparently (from what people have told me on my travels). As I've always said, if you want change, vote third party. But Obama gets my vote unless he's a clear landslide in IL. If that's the case, Libertarians get my vote.
if hillary wins the dem nomination, i am voting for nader

[cache]

I think the Dem candidates are currently getting a lot more attention than the Repubs, so they have the advantage of framing the debate for 2008. Plus all the Repub candidates have major Achilles heals...

[wordsmith]

The current Republican administration has such a black eye, it's inevitable that more buzz is going for the Democratic side.

[Bman120]

At this point, people just want a change. And that means the democrats for most people.

Also, their side has viable women and black candidates, a first for American politics and both happen to be on one side of the isle. That's impressive and should draw a lot of attention as it has.

I think it will be a very interesting primary and whomever wins it will definitely give the republicans a run for their money this time. As much as i'd love to see the republicans keep the white house, it could be a close one.

[wordsmith]

At this point, people just want a change.

Yep...and in my opinion, it's a needed change, not simply a change for change's sake at this point. I think the midterm election conveyed that.

[HereComes30]

Long response since I have not been on in awhile…

Personally, I wasn’t disappointed with either Al Gore or John Kerry. I thought they would've made fine Presidents.

Why does not surprise me. Shocking to me....but not surprising.

Hillary and Obama can't win because the Republicans will successfully paint them as liberals. A perceived liberal will not win the 2008 election. A liberal cannot win Missouri and probably not Ohio. I see those two states as deciding the show. If they can't win there, forget it.

No, I think Hilary can’t win because it is too easy to run ads of her in her own words saying the exact opposite things she said ten minutes before depending on her audience. And I think more people will find it weird that the first lady would be a man therefore having to change it to “First Spouse” more so than a woman in office. Plus wait till the audios of Hilary going off come out…that lady has one hell of a temper according to many insiders…and when the shrill Hilary voice comes out…her poll numbers go down.

Mark Warner wouldn't run; he would have picked up Virginia, and that would have tipped the scales totally to the Democrats.

Yep…skeletons in the closet or Hilary scared him off. The whole “for family reasons” was a tell tale sign that someone dug up something.

I think a lot of the hoopla around Obama will fizzle out (sorry to his fans) and I think Hilary will steam roll anyone in her path, despite the fact that she isn't going to win the race in the end. She just isn't.

Totally agree with this point.

I also predict that the Dems are going to push too hard, far and loudly for this current line of defunding the war and it is going to come back to hurt them in 2008. Or they will get their way, we pull out totally, and lose the war, and a bloodbath in Iraq is the result like in Vietnam and that will kill their chances in 2008 as well.

Maybe Obama shares a vision of the future of this nation that JFK had in 1960

He has THAT kind of vision for the country? Really? Can you quote him on that? I have yet to hear him say anything anywhere close to as meaningful, inspiring, or futuristic as JFK. So far all he has said are things that have already been said a million times or are said just in slightly different words but with the same meaning and goal as what Bush is currently doing. Maybe I just haven’t spent as much time listening to the news and missed his great speech.

For me, the biggest qualifier is whether I can trust the candidate. Is he/she the type of person who, if the given the opportunity and no chance of getting caught, would screw someone (read: me) over for personal gain? Personal integrity is more important than specific strategies or policies.

So you are definitely not voting for Hilary then I take it.

Speaking of Hilary…how do those from NY feel about her lying to them? Didn’t she say that she would work hard for the state of NY, serve out her full-term, and give them her best effort? And now she is running around the country on a campaign tour and not focusing on what the people of NY elected her to do.

Don’t worry…if McCain or Guiliani win it is basically like a Democrat/Moderate winning anyway. And they are the Republican frontrunners so far. There are some high power potentials for the Republicans that have not announced yet because they (and I agree) think the whole election has been pushed up way too early now. It is like Christmas stuff in the stores before Thanksgiving!

[and1grad]

Why does not surprise me. Shocking to me....but not surprising.
I hope you have something good to back up this sentiment considering the guy you voted and stuck up for on threads.

[wordsmith]

So far all he has said are things that have already been said a million times or are said just in slightly different words but with the same meaning and goal as what Bush is currently doing. Maybe I just haven’t spent as much time listening to the news and missed his great speech.

Seriously? Interesting. You should probably read up.

Speaking of Hilary…how do those from NY feel about her lying to them? Didn’t she say that she would work hard for the state of NY, serve out her full-term, and give them her best effort? And now she is running around the country on a campaign tour and not focusing on what the people of NY elected her to do.

Probably the same way Obama's supporters felt about him deciding to run when he'd previously said he didn't plan to...glad for the possibility of representing the state as a presidential hopeful?

[and1grad]

I also predict that the Dems are going to push too hard, far and loudly for this current line of defunding the war and it is going to come back to hurt them in 2008. Or they will get their way, we pull out totally, and lose the war, and a bloodbath in Iraq is the result like in Vietnam and that will kill their chances in 2008 as well.
I have a question, not just for you but for those supporting the war. How do you expect to win? I'm having a lot of trouble understanding why people think this is a situation that can be somehow won. How delusional are our leaders to think that a democracy is going to all of a sudden work where the 3 different sections of the country HATE each other? They're all going to come together under the umbrella of forced democracy? Really? That makes sense? Sorry...this WAS intended to be one question but it turned into more.

[wordsmith]

I have a question, not just for you but for those supporting the war. How do you expect to win? I'm having a lot of trouble understanding why people think this is a situation that can be somehow won. How delusional are our leaders to think that a democracy is going to all of a sudden work where the 3 different sections of the country HATE each other? They're all going to come together under the umbrella of forced democracy? Really? That makes sense? Sorry...this WAS intended to be one question but it turned into more.

I wonder this, as well.

[and1grad]

I wonder this, as well.
I should say, besides uniting to hate a common enemy, us.

[redav]

I have a question, not just for you but for those supporting the war. How do you expect to win? I'm having a lot of trouble understanding why people think this is a situation that can be somehow won. How delusional are our leaders to think that a democracy is going to all of a sudden work where the 3 different sections of the country HATE each other? They're all going to come together under the umbrella of forced democracy? Really? That makes sense? Sorry...this WAS intended to be one question but it turned into more.
First, a historical question: How long did we keep troops in Germany and Japan after WWII? or in the Persian Gulf after the first war? That should give some insight into how long one should expect to keep troops in Iraq, especially since Japan & Germany were countries capable of governing themselves.

Given the fact that they don't know how to govern themselves, I have always expected that there wouldn't be a functional Iraq for at least a full generation (~25 yrs) and that we would be involved to a large degree for that entire time. The goal is to:
1) keep outside influences, like Iran & al-qaeda from destabilizing them, and
2) keep them from killing themselves
before that happens. Since these are very difficult and expensive (in both life and resources) it would have been better not to have gone to war in the first place. However, debating what should have been done serves no purpose. The question now is at what point will pulling troops out cause less damage than keeping them there? (The most common rebuttal I have heardis that the situation now is so bad, pulling out can not make it any worse. I don't buy that for a second; I can think of far too many ways that it could be worse.)

- If we pull out now, the already shaky Iraq will crumble, the civil war will escalate, countries like Iran & Syria will advertise the defeat of the US which will encourage & embolden those who already want to see us dead, and al-qaeda will have ample breeding ground in the power vacuum, just like Afghanistan used to be.
- If the troops stay, then it is still possible that all the above will happen, but the odds decrease. But no matter what happens, things will not improve enough to get to a break-even point for at least several years.

The biggest problem right now is that they are killing each other, and they will continue to kill each other until they are done killing each other. (And their govt doesn't seem to care.) Since so many have a closer relationship with vendetta than logical reason, I don't know how anyone will get them to stop the civil war without pulling a Hussein and exterminating them into submission. If they do stop killing each other, then 'victory' is rather straightforward: secure the borders preventing outside influences and prevent the civil war from starting up again until we get to the point that pulling out will cause less damage than staying.

Nothing we do will work if they don't get the self govt thing worked out. So far, they have been a complete failure. I don't know how that can be fixed. But if we pull out before it's fixed, then things will only be worse, and for me, that's not really much of an option. Also, if the American public stays as angry and divided as they currently are, we will have no chance.

[pisces2473]

He has THAT kind of vision for the country? Really? Can you quote him on that? I have yet to hear him say anything anywhere close to as meaningful, inspiring, or futuristic as JFK. So far all he has said are things that have already been said a million times or are said just in slightly different words but with the same meaning and goal as what Bush is currently doing. Maybe I just haven’t spent as much time listening to the news and missed his great speech.
Well, remember, JFK is dead, and has been for over 40 years. Time, as well as a sudden death, makes one look squeaky clean. History was kind to JFK. Also, our country was a lot different then than it is now. So you really cannot even begin to compare the two.

Also, everyone: Spell Sen. Clinton's name right, dammit. Especially after the typos thread. Hillary--with TWO L's.

[wordsmith]

Also, everyone: Spell Sen. Clinton's name right, dammit. Especially after the typos thread. Hillary--with TWO L's.

For fuck's sake, "candidates" is misspelled in the thread title. I know everyone wants to be Canadian, but still...

[and1grad]

First, a historical question: How long did we keep troops in Germany and Japan after WWII? or in the Persian Gulf after the first war? That should give some insight into how long one should expect to keep troops in Iraq, especially since Japan & Germany were countries capable of governing themselves.
Since Iraq ISNT a country capable of governing itself, and in reality hasnt been for some time now, I dont see how Japan & Germany are a good example. They didnt have anywhere near the amount of inner turmoil.
Given the fact that they don't know how to govern themselves, I have always expected that there wouldn't be a functional Iraq for at least a full generation (~25 yrs) and that we would be involved to a large degree for that entire time. The goal is to:
1) keep outside influences, like Iran & al-qaeda from destabilizing them, and
2) keep them from killing themselves
before that happens. Since these are very difficult and expensive (in both life and resources) it would have been better not to have gone to war in the first place. However, debating what should have been done serves no purpose. The question now is at what point will pulling troops out cause less damage than keeping them there? (The most common rebuttal I have heardis that the situation now is so bad, pulling out can not make it any worse. I don't buy that for a second; I can think of far too many ways that it could be worse.)

- If we pull out now, the already shaky Iraq will crumble, the civil war will escalate, countries like Iran & Syria will advertise the defeat of the US which will encourage & embolden those who already want to see us dead, and al-qaeda will have ample breeding ground in the power vacuum, just like Afghanistan used to be.
- If the troops stay, then it is still possible that all the above will happen, but the odds decrease. But no matter what happens, things will not improve enough to get to a break-even point for at least several years.
I dont buy that pulling out wont make it worse either. It WILL get worse at whatever point we do decide to pull out. The odds of option #1 dont decrease by any significant value, the only difference is that you're forfeiting more American lives with option #2. I also dont buy that embolden the enemy junk b/c they're just as emboldened by the fact that we're making LITTLE difference there.
The biggest problem right now is that they are killing each other, and they will continue to kill each other until they are done killing each other. (And their govt doesn't seem to care.) Since so many have a closer relationship with vendetta than logical reason, I don't know how anyone will get them to stop the civil war without pulling a Hussein and exterminating them into submission. If they do stop killing each other, then 'victory' is rather straightforward: secure the borders preventing outside influences and prevent the civil war from starting up again until we get to the point that pulling out will cause less damage than staying.
What gives any of us ANY reason to think they're gonna stop killing each other? They have a common enemy, us, and they STILL havent stopped hating, and killing, each other to concentrate on us.
Nothing we do will work if they don't get the self govt thing worked out. So far, they have been a complete failure. I don't know how that can be fixed. But if we pull out before it's fixed, then things will only be worse, and for me, that's not really much of an option. Also, if the American public stays as angry and divided as they currently are, we will have no chance.
The only way you fix it is by doing what Saddam did.

[cache]

OK, almighty political predictor HereComes30, please tell us, o great one, who and what path the Repubs should take to victory in 08?

[Bman120]

I have a question, not just for you but for those supporting the war. How do you expect to win? I'm having a lot of trouble understanding why people think this is a situation that can be somehow won. How delusional are our leaders to think that a democracy is going to all of a sudden work where the 3 different sections of the country HATE each other? They're all going to come together under the umbrella of forced democracy? Really? That makes sense? Sorry...this WAS intended to be one question but it turned into more.

Well it really depends on what kind of democratic government we are talking about here. We're not going to see an American style one show up that is for sure. The very principals of democracy would mean that the shiites would hold the majority control of the government. There may well be different political parties, but in terms of religion, the shiites will have it. Their government may end up a full democracy but in time, it might.

Ever read up on why the Shaw of Iran was put in charge as a dictator in Iran after Mossadeq was overthrown? Because of a political theory that you cant just throw down a democracy and expect it to work. You need to start with a strong government then over time, transition into democracy, taking the needed steps as people are ready. Of course, we didnt force the Shaw to do those things and it all went to hell but I believe that Iraq and the situation with Hamas and Palestine shows that this theory is correct. If you just throw democracy down, the results are catastrophic. You need time before it can be fully implimented. We havent given Iraq nearly enough time to get this done. The problem is America is too impatient to see it through and the world is too blind with contempt for this enterprise to help us see it through.

Back to the prospects of peace in Iraq, the sunni's need to learn to deal with shiite's having majority control. If we can return things to the way they were before the golden mosque bombing by crushing most of these militias, we may be able to get the majority of them to at least accept things to reduce the violence. After people see enough death, they tire of it. We saw it after WW2 and the Iraqis must be feeling it too. If we can cut down most of the militias, we may be able to get the sunnis and shiites to at least not kill each other en masse.

Let me explain that a bit further. Human beings are good people for the most part. Its humanity en masse that is violent, untamed and crazy. If we can get the individuals over there to mesh together as they were under sadaam, we can get the values of the individual to overcome the horrible nature of the masses.

I'm not saying this is easy, likely or even possible in the time left of Bush's term, but it is the best hope for those people and the best hope to turn this all around. We owe it to them, to our dead and to ourselves.

[wordsmith]

Basically, what I'm getting out of this is that since we put our oar in, we're now obligated to stick it out in continuing atrocities of war until something unfixable and not fixable in the first place, at least, not by us, is fixed, i.e. not gonna happen? Sounds great.

America cannot build another government for another country. That country has to build their own. I recently interviewed a local guy who's been in Iraq for quite some time, an army major who serves with the Military Transition Teams, Special Police Transition Teams, and Border Transition Teams, the U.S. forces responsible for helping train and acclimate the fledgling security forces of Iraq. He's gotten a Bronze Star for his work with the Iraqi Assistance Group. They are specialists of all different types and their job is to support the security forces of Iraq as they transition into a post-Saddam Hussein government and economy. The creation of the Transition Teams has been described as part of the national strategy for victory in Iraq, and an instance where the U.S. military is itself transitioning out of fighting insurgents to providing support and advising for the forces of the country itself. In talking with him, he noted that there really is not all that much American forces CAN do at this point. One important thing to remember, he said, is that this work’s desired end result is one of self-sufficiency. This is Iraq doing things for Iraq... America can't do that. He explained that in supporting the country’s rebuilding, it’s important to keep in mind the goal of Iraq taking ownership of its own democracy (or, more accurately, their version thereof, since, as he noted, we shouldn't be in the business of eroding their culture) and essential rebirth. American forces can help assist in this process, he noted, by helping to promote the necessary infrastructure.

In my opinion, this is ALL that we can do. They have to rebuild their country for themselves, ultimately.

[Bman120]

Basically, what I'm getting out of this is that since we put our oar in, we're now obligated to stick it out in continuing atrocities of war until something unfixable and not fixable in the first place, at least, not by us, is fixed, i.e. not gonna happen? Sounds great.


No, that's not what I mean't. Iraq being unfixable is a matter of opinion. Neither of us really know for sure if this can be fixed. What I am saying is that when there is a choice of a path where it will not be fixed or a path where we may be able to fix it, we are obligated to take the path where there is a chance to fix it.

This is Iraq doing things for Iraq... America can't do that. He explained that in supporting the country’s rebuilding, it’s important to keep in mind the goal of Iraq taking ownership of its own democracy (or, more accurately, their version thereof, since, as he noted, we shouldn't be in the business of eroding their culture) and essential rebirth. American forces can help assist in this process, he noted, by helping to promote the necessary infrastructure.

In my opinion, this is ALL that we can do. They have to rebuild their country for themselves, ultimately.

We can't build their government, that's absolutely right. But we can do is set up the best conditions possible for them to be able to do it on their own. Uncontrolled sectarian violence is not the best environment for a government to be formed. If we can get the violence significantly reduced, we will give them a better chance to succeed which we need to do for them.

[wordsmith]

No, that's not what I mean't. Iraq being unfixable is a matter of opinion. Neither of us really know for sure if this can be fixed. What I am saying is that when there is a choice of a path where it will not be fixed or a path where we may be able to fix it, we are obligated to take the path where there is a chance to fix it.


Unfixable FOR US and our forces. It's up to them. We can help provide training and any similar humanitarian efforts. But waging war on anybody isn't doing any good.

We can't build their government, that's absolutely right. But we can do is set up the best conditions possible for them to be able to do it on their own. Uncontrolled sectarian violence is not the best environment for a government to be formed.


Again, you're getting into US laying the groundwork for another nation's government. They're not our colony, we don't share their culture, we don't really have any business attempting to have a hand in forming their government. A dictator was taken out of power, and that's a good thing. But what you're saying is a matter of semantics...it's still US setting up our idea of a workable government for another country and culture, which I just don't happen to think will work, and I really hate the idea of the sacrifice of life that it will nonetheless entail.

Do you think there will EVER be a time without sectarian violence in this area of the world? Do you really think that the United States has a prayer of walking in and solving something that's plagued a region from time immemorial simply because it's the United States and we're cowboys, damnit? Are we supposed to continue to sacrifice lives indefinitely, since if "winning" is putting a stop to sectarian violence, there's no way we can ever plan on crossing the finish line? Their military needs to be sufficiently trained to handle their own issues. Reduction in violence is something THOSE CULTURES need to take ownership of.

[Bman120]

Unfixable FOR US and our forces. It's up to them. We can help provide training and any similar humanitarian efforts. But waging war on anybody isn't doing any good.

Besides waging war, how else do we provide the training and humanitarian efforts? Any people we keep there are targets and will be shot at. We stay involved, we stay in the war. There's no efficient way to do it that would keep our people safe.

Again, you're getting into US laying the groundwork for another nation's government.

Helping them lay groundwork is very different from making their government. Sometimes you need to help with the foundation so that the building someone else builds on top will stay up. Not trying to overdo this metaphor but a foundation is built differently than the building on top sometimes and what it takes to build one isnt the same as what it takes to build the other.

So us helping them with the groundwork is different than building the government.

They're not our colony, we don't share their culture, we don't really have any business attempting to have a hand in forming their government. A dictator was taken out of power, and that's a good thing. But what you're saying is a matter of semantics...it's still US setting up our idea of a workable government for another country and culture, which I just don't happen to think will work, and I really hate the idea of the sacrifice of life that it will nonetheless entail.


We share one thing in common with them, we're all human beings. We're all entitled to happiness and the chance to give our children and grandchildren a better world to live in.

By taking Hussain out, we set in motion a chain of events that led to what is happening over there. We owe it to the people there, not because they are valuable, not because they could be a colony, but becase they are human beings and it is the right thing to do to give them a better life and finish what we started when we got rid of Sadaam. We said we wanted to rid the people there of a brutal life, well now we need finish that task.

Do you think there will EVER be a time without sectarian violence in this area of the world? Do you really think that the United States has a prayer of walking in and solving something that's plagued a region from time immemorial simply because it's the United States and we're cowboys, damnit? Are we supposed to continue to sacrifice lives indefinitely, since if "winning" is putting a stop to sectarian violence, there's no way we can ever plan on crossing the finish line? Their military needs to be sufficiently trained to handle their own issues. Reduction in violence is something THOSE CULTURES need to take ownership of.

I'm not talking about ending the schism between sunni and shiite. That's been going on since the death of the prophet muhammed. Nobody beyond the muslim world can end that.

All I want is to reduce the tensions enough within Iraq's boarders so that it isnt a failed state and a producer/aid to terrorism. And that is possible. It goes back to what I said earlier. Humanity en masse is foolish, prone to violence and dangerous. However, man himself is for the post part capable of great things and great displays of compassion and adaptability.

Before we overthrew Sadaam and even before the golden mosque bombing, sunni and shiite men and women were able to live together as men and women. Maybe it was out of fear and after Sadaam because they couldnt move, but they lived together as men and women and learned from it. There are many cases of them co-existing. How is this possible? Because unlike the masses, man himself/herself is capable of coexisting despite sectarian strife.

Given time, the desires of the few can be brought out in enough Iraqis to bring the violence to a level that won't damage the fabric of their society beyond their extent to handle it. We just need to give it time. Maybe their lives arent worth our treasure to you but I have no doubt the lives of innocent Americans are.

And with Iraq more stable and thus less likely to breed or support terror, American lives are safer. And that is why we started the war on terror, to save American lives.

[wordsmith]

And that is why we started the war on terror, to save American lives.

This is immensely gratifying to all the American lives lost fighting a losing battle against something that you can't fight.

[Bman120]

^ You can't fight the idea of terrorism and islamic fundamentalism, but you can fight those who hold that idea and who act on it.

Ideas are like parasites, they need a host to survive and spread. Kill the host and the parasite has nowhere to go. That's what the war on terror is all about. Destroying the mechanisms by which radical islam functions and who use its name to justify acts of death and destruction.

As for this being a losing battle, explain to me how you know we're losing?

[wordsmith]

As for this being a losing battle, explain to me how you know we're losing?

Interestingly, you still haven't answered and1's question, which is how in the world it's possible to win?

[Bman120]

^ Fair enough. We start by getting the violence down. At the moment, the majority of the sectarian violence is confined to Baghdad and the areas close by. The surge already has and will continue to reduce the levels of violence there. Also, Al-Anbar province needs to be dealt with and the surge will help there too.

In concert with the crackdown on violence, we need to amplify local reconstruction projects and by local I mean down to the grassroots levels. We need to go into areas where there was once violence and we need to make visible repairs that better the locals. We repair bridges, we repair sewage facilities, we restore electricity we do things that make a visible impact on people's lives. After we do that, we keep some measure of protection there long enough for the militias to loose their connections to these areas so if they do return, they will need to start from stratch and their reintroduction will become visible enough to show up on our radar.

We also need to keep targeting the Al-Quds operatives in Iraq. We know they are there and capturing and killing them is the best message to send to Iran. The Iranians wont officially acknowledge what they are doing so they cant officially retaliate against us for doing it. We make it clear to Iran that their expansion into Iraqi affairs is at an end.

We also need to begin some sort of backchannel talk with Syria. It cant be public but privately we need to try to split them off from Iran to further isolate them and to perhaps reduce their influence in Iraq.

This will take a long time to show a major impact but if we show enough resolve and work hard, we will see results. And its better than just leaving them to their own fates.

Now how about answering my question?

[PeakDream]

It's simple to win if you go by recent history. Let them kill each other until mothers have no more tears to shed for her dying children, and father is an empty figure that no longer exist. Eventually, people will be so fed up by war, that they can no longer fight anymore. The situation in Iraq is beyond civil war.

Anyone who compares Japan and Germany to Iraq should go back to their high school history teachers and smack them in the face.
1. Japan and Germany are homogeneous society where Iraq isn't.
2. Japanese and German people n general were highly educated, and share common goals where Iraqis don't.

BTW, what the hell does Iraq have to do with terrorists in the first place? Didn't Pres. Bush himself said there is not link between Iraq and Al-Queda?

1. How are we going to do grass root movement for constructions when no one is safe there?
2. As to Iran, killing its operative does nothing to stop them, since they can't gain anything by stopping. Forcing someone to the negotiation tables is hard if you don't talk to them.
3. Why do people think Syria wants to talk to US and split from Iran?
4. How long is a long time? Five years, ten years? This is a war of attrition, and it can't win by military.

[wordsmith]

You think that "winning" is temporarily getting violence down in a sector of the world that will always see violence unless they work out a way to reasonably resolve their cultural and spiritual and political differences, which, if past centuries are any indication, I won't really be holding my breath waiting on.

The U.S.'s Iraqi Assistance forces are already in motion on the infrastructure work of which you speak. Things as seemingly basic as functional sewer, trash, water, and electricity being in place are important steps to a nation’s rebuilding, and if we can help with that, I don't disagree that we DO owe that assistance. That is an ongoing thing, as well as providing proper training for their own military forces to TAKE OVER the job of policing THEIR OWN COUNTRY, which gives far more ownership of the process of forming their version of a democracy than with us doing it.

To me, fighting a "war on terror" IS a losing proposition, because you can't declare war on an ideology, on an abstract principal. There isn't any way to win that. The thing with "fighting terror" is that it's like the hydra in Greek mythology...chop off one head, multiple heads grow in its place, fighting many times as strong. Lives lost in a country that I feel we have no real business in, and truly no business staying in for the long term is not the earmark of winning anything, to me.

[Bman120]

It's simple to win if you go by recent history. Let them kill each other until mothers have no more tears to shed for her dying children, and father is an empty figure that no longer exist. Eventually, people will be so fed up by war, that they can no longer fight anymore. The situation in Iraq is beyond civil war.


And in the meantime, a lot of innocent people will die in a place where too many have already died.

You think that "winning" is temporarily getting violence down in a sector of the world that will always see violence unless they work out a way to reasonably resolve their cultural and spiritual and political differences, which, if past centuries are any indication, I won't really be holding my breath waiting on.


This particular method of solving the problem has yet to be tried. Don't look at the middle east as a homogeneous region. There are a lot of different cultures there who have been affected by this schism in many ways. Most of the middle east may be in turmoil, but there is no reason we can't change parts. We know from our observations of Iraq under Hussain that when forced, Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq can co-exist. Lets try and get them to do so again. It has only been a few years so they do remember. We just need to get these militias away to get rid of the impediment of fear.

It won't be easy. As you said before Words, it may not even be likely, but it is POSSIBLE. And as long as there is hope, we owe it to them to try.

To me, fighting a "war on terror" IS a losing proposition, because you can't declare war on an ideology, on an abstract principal. There isn't any way to win that.

Like I said above, ideas and ideology are like parasites, they need hosts to survive and spread. And while we cant kill ideas, we can easily kill their hosts which is how we stop the ideology of terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism. That is how we win.

The thing with "fighting terror" is that it's like the hydra in Greek mythology...chop off one head, multiple heads grow in its place, fighting many times as strong. Lives lost in a country that I feel we have no real business in, and truly no business staying in for the long term is not the earmark of winning anything, to me

Perhaps, but the heads that take its place are weaker than the one we killed. And with each kill, the terrorists loose experience and training that is invaluable to them.

As for us having no business in Iraq, I disagree but then that's a matter of opinion I guess so to each their own.

[PeakDream]

The only business we have in middle east is oil. Whether you disagree or not is irrelevant since it's a fact. We didn't do shit when Africa is decimated by civil wars. We didn't do shit when Jews and Asians were getting slaughtered by the Axis Power, we joined only after we been bombed in Pearl Harbor.

[Bman120]

The only business we have in middle east is oil. Whether you disagree or not is irrelevant since it's a fact. We didn't do shit when Africa is decimated by civil wars. We didn't do shit when Jews and Asians were getting slaughtered by the Axis Power, we joined only after we been bombed in Pearl Harbor.


African tribes didnt send agents here to suicide bomb us and threaten to do it again. Nor did they launch an arial strike on pear harbor.

True this didnt start because we wanted to do the right thing but while we are there, we should try. Also, doing the right thing helps defeat terrorism by removing conditions that lead to it.

This is not just about oil.

[wordsmith]

And in the meantime, a lot of innocent people will die in a place where too many have already died.

As opposed to what will happen if we stay there and fight a country's civil war FOR it?

Don't look at the middle east as a homogeneous region.

Hasn't everything I've posted so far been precisely to the contrary?

Not sure how you got me thinking that the middle east is ANYthing resembling homogenous, from anything I posted.

Most of the middle east may be in turmoil, but there is no reason we can't change parts.

It's NOT OUR JOB to "change parts." We would NOT take kindly to other countries who are thoroughly opposed to the way we operate invading us to clean up our iniquities and problematic governmental structures.

We know from our observations of Iraq under Hussain that when forced, Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq can co-exist. Lets try and get them to do so again. It has only been a few years so they do remember. We just need to get these militias away to get rid of the impediment of fear.

Now we're seeking to EMULATE a dictatorial regime fraught with human rights atrocities? Good plan.

Like I said above, ideas and ideology are like parasites, they need hosts to survive and spread. And while we cant kill ideas, we can easily kill their hosts which is how we stop the ideology of terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism. That is how we win.

If you think we can and will kill every fundamentalist, you ARE resigned to an occupation of undetermined length, at God only knows what cost.

We will NEVER, EVER, EVER "stop" the ideology of terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism. Will anybody ever convince you that your religion is wrong, if you have one? Doubtful. Belief systems, especially radical fundamentalist ones, don't change because somebody attempts to strongarm them out of you. Opposition only strengthens resolve among the self-righteous, particularly the religiously self-righteous, who have it ingrained in their belief system that those in opposition are infidels.

Perhaps, but the heads that take its place are weaker than the one we killed. And with each kill, the terrorists loose experience and training that is invaluable to them.

Which would be pretty valuable if we were bothering to concer ourselves with all the OTHER seats of terror and extremism in the globe, but we're not. We support financial networks that feed terrorism, we have so-called allies in the middle east who oppress their own people, suffer corrupt governments, and do a piss poor job of providing for their youth, who are then going to be increasingly succeptible to the call of fundamentalist, terrorist groups. I think that by inflaming the world at large, and tarnishing our global reputation, we don't discourage anything; moreover, we fan the flames.

As for us having no business in Iraq, I disagree but then that's a matter of opinion I guess so to each their own.

But, see, that's precisely why I'll never see it as a winning proposition, and you'll never see it as a losing one. That's the entire point.

Back to the main point of the thread, when Barack Obama was opposing involvement in a war in Iraq back in 2002, he put it this way:

"That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics...I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars."

Which is a pretty good illustration of why, as I noted early on in the thread, I'm NOT disappointed in the Democratic presidential candidates.

The reason I don't and won't see it your way is that you're under the impression that the impetus for declaing war was some sort of altruistic hero move, whereas it's clear to me that it was purely self-serving political machination. And one that has cost us countless lives.

[wordsmith]

We didn't do shit when Africa is decimated by civil wars.

Nor are we now, nor will we ever. It's always interesting to me the causes that we choose to "champion."

[Xander]

We didn't do shit when Africa is decimated by civil wars. We didn't do shit when Jews and Asians were getting slaughtered by the Axis Power, we joined only after we been bombed in Pearl Harbor.
I think Paul should chime in here... Paul?

Let me just say some quick things:

We've intervened in Africa on many occasions. Bush Sr. sent us into Somalia for aide efforts during their civil war. Then we lost a few soldiers (Black Hawk Down) and our troops were pulled out... that decision was horrendous for national security.

We didn't enter into WWII because Americans had no stomach for war. Not after "The Great War." No way. But we were already amassing interests in the war (sending supplies, etc.) as if the military knew we would eventually enter the war, but didn't have the support of the people at the time. And contrary to popular belief, we didn't know about concentration camps and such against Jews and other ethnic groups until late in the war. WWII wasn't about Jews. And the Russians were more terrible than anyone else. The Japanese were up there as well, followed closely by the Germans, in my humble opinion.

Anyway, I'm very excited about Obama running. As for Republicans, the selection is dismal at best. I'd like another McCain "HEEeEYyAaaaaaah!!!"

[wordsmith]

The point, though, is that it's farcical and disingenuous to suggest that U.S. forces were sent to war in Iraq primarily for the good of the Iraqi people.

[Xander]

The point, though, is that it's farcical and disingenuous to suggest that U.S. forces were sent to war in Iraq primarily for the good of the Iraqi people.
Absolutely.

[wordsmith]

And yet, now, the only argument for staying is "for the good of the Iraqi people," which we really weren't primarily concerned about in the first place, or to somehow singlehandedly change the warring cultures of the Middle East...

[Bman120]

As opposed to what will happen if we stay there and fight a country's civil war FOR it?

If we leave, it is certain many will die, if we stay it is less certain that as many would die. I'd rather take the path with the greatest possibility of a better outcome even if it isnt much better.

Hasn't everything I've posted so far been precisely to the contrary?

Not sure how you got me thinking that the middle east is ANYthing resembling homogenous, from anything I posted.

When we were talking about the schism, you related its effects in Iraq to the whole middle east, I was trying to say you need to remember that the differences in cultures extend to the schism to a certain extent and that eventhough we cant end it alltogether, we can lessen its extent in some areas. If I misread what you were trying to say, then my bad. :)

It's NOT OUR JOB to "change parts." We would NOT take kindly to other countries who are thoroughly opposed to the way we operate invading us to clean up our iniquities and problematic governmental structures.

It became our job the day Radical Islamic fundamentalists set their sights on us. They feed from the current state of affairs over there and in order to cut their umbilical cord, we need to change the way things work over there as much as we can. So i'd say it very much is our job now, not because its our right, but because they made it our job.

Now we're seeking to EMULATE a dictatorial regime fraught with human rights atrocities? Good plan.

I think you misunderstood me there. I'm not saying we do what he did. All I was saying was that they were shown they could co-exist together and that means that they can again.

If you think we can and will kill every fundamentalist, you ARE resigned to an occupation of undetermined length, at God only knows what cost.

We will NEVER, EVER, EVER "stop" the ideology of terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism.

We don't have to get them all to stop the ideology from being a threat to us. We just need to get enough to neuter the threat so to speak so it isnt as dangerous. Bush has said many times how this war is totally different from all other wars we have fought and the criteria for victory is also different. In this case, its reducing the threat to us.

Will anybody ever convince you that your religion is wrong, if you have one? Doubtful. Belief systems, especially radical fundamentalist ones, don't change because somebody attempts to strongarm them out of you.

True. But the religion itself isnt the problem. You know as well as I that the majority of muslims are good people. We need to stop the evil minority that is creating terrorism. Perhaps we cant convince them to change their views but what we can do is convince them not to risk it all in attacking us. Pragmatism and self interest extend to everyone, even terrorists. We show them that conducting attacks will bring a heavy price on them and those around them and they will be less likely to come after us. They can hate us all they want, but as long as they don't attack us, its ok.

It worked well for the Israelis. During the second entafada, Hamas and other groups announced the names of their suicide attackers. So Israel took that info and bulldozed down their families houses after. This caused families to rethink wether they wanted their sons to martyr themselves because of the damage it would bring to themselves. We show them the damage that will be done to them enough, they will hesitate before coming after us. Not all of them, but enough to reduce the potential for attacks.

Which would be pretty valuable if we were bothering to concer ourselves with all the OTHER seats of terror and extremism in the globe, but we're not. We support financial networks that feed terrorism, we have so-called allies in the middle east who oppress their own people, suffer corrupt governments, and do a piss poor job of providing for their youth, who are then going to be increasingly succeptible to the call of fundamentalist, terrorist groups. I think that by inflaming the world at large, and tarnishing our global reputation, we don't discourage anything; moreover, we fan the flames.


We can only do so much words. We cant stop all terrorism and go after all its sponsors without significant damage to ourselves. If our allies were with us we could but despite what they all said after 9/11, they arent with us as much as they said. So we unfortunately have to pick our battles and hope they are the right ones. Its a bad situation to be sure, but its the best we can do. I think you have to agree we cant go after them all ourselves right?

The reason I don't and won't see it your way is that you're under the impression that the impetus for declaing war was some sort of altruistic hero move, whereas it's clear to me that it was purely self-serving political machination. And one that has cost us countless lives.

No, for me the main impetus was national security. Altering the state of the middle east to stabilize it would reduce the ability of terrorists to breed there.

However, its clear that because of our errors and a lot of unforseen circumstances, it will be some time, if ever before we can stabilize Iraq, saying nothing of the middle east. At this point, the impetus for continuing this war for me is an altruistic move for the people over there.

We started this for our own reasons, the main ones being our own security with the Iraqi people's being secondary. With those objectives being a long way off if even possible, our goals must now turn to helping the people we have put in danger. Its the right thing to do and if successful, will help our original goals of self interest in the long run.

Nor are we now, nor will we ever. It's always interesting to me the causes that we choose to "champion."

After the way the public has turned on Iraq, do you honestly think any president could sell the American people on intervention in Africa? Even before Iraq, they never would have agreed on an intervention large enough to make any kind of a difference over there.

[PeakDream]

African tribes didnt send agents here to suicide bomb us and threaten to do it again. Nor did they launch an arial strike on pear harbor.

True this didnt start because we wanted to do the right thing but while we are there, we should try. Also, doing the right thing helps defeat terrorism by removing conditions that lead to it.

This is not just about oil.

This is about as silly as an argument for war as you can possibly get. How many times this administration admitted to that Iraq has no link with Al-Queda? This is a FACT!!! I supported this war when it first started, not because of terrorism, but because of removal of a dictator. I still support this war, I have absolutely no confidence that this administration has any ability to win this war other than more and more troops.

BTW, study history will tell you, as long as there are inequity, there will be terrorists. What makes someone think this can be removed or stopped? Terrorism isn't some new form of modern society ill, it's been there since cavemen realizes they can beat the crap out of someone else. Looking at recent history shown it takes a long time, and outside influence has never made any difference. Sadly, we lost more people in Iraq now than 9/11. Not to mentioned countless number of Iraqi people who died for simply being a Sunnie or Shiite.

[redav]

Since Iraq ISNT a country capable of governing itself, and in reality hasnt been for some time now, I dont see how Japan & Germany are a good example. They didnt have anywhere near the amount of inner turmoil.
This is why it is a GREAT example. When performing calculations, you may not be able to accurately determine the answer to a specific problem, but you can determine the answer to a simpler problem that is always greater/less than the one in question and use that as a bound. Here's an example: integrating 1/(x² + x + 1) on [1,∞) is not exactly easy. But I know that it is < 1/x² (which is easy to integrate) for all x on [1,∞). Therefore, I can use the integral to the simpler problem as my upper bound--the actual answer cannot be more than that.

For Japan & Germany, they were better in every way; therefore, the length of time we had to keep troops in those countries is the LOWER bound for how long we would need to keep troops in Iraq.


I dont buy that pulling out wont make it worse either. It WILL get worse at whatever point we do decide to pull out. The odds of option #1 dont decrease by any significant value, the only difference is that you're forfeiting more American lives with option #2. I also dont buy that embolden the enemy junk b/c they're just as emboldened by the fact that we're making LITTLE difference there.
Worse for whom? I'm talking about the US, not them (at what point is the damage done to the US less when pulling out than staying). You actually contradict yourself: "It WILL get worse at whatever point we do decide to pull out," and "we're making LITTLE difference there." Which is it, an emphatic it WILL get worse, meaning we are making enough of a difference that things will slide downhill enough for caps, or the difference we're making is so LITTLE that it warrants caps emphasizing how small our contribution is?

I also see a symptomatic problem with the American view--it's nearsighted, and not just with war but everything else. Why is the savings rate negative? Why is so little being done for the environment? Why are we not fixing SS, Medicare, or the debt? Why are we not going full-steam ahead trying to ween ourselves from foreign oil? Why do people drive 80 mph when right in front of them is a red light with a stack of six cars parked at it? It is all because we, collectively, don't think/look ahead. For the situation in Iraq, what do you think will happen 5, 10, 20, 50 years from now?

With the situation now, their govt is being propped up (by us). If it collapses, who is going to benefit? How did the taliban take control in Afghanistan? Do you not agree that it is quite possible that a similar situation could form in Iraq--a govt that allows terrorists groups to set up base (and in this case it would be worse because they could be directly funded with large amounts of oil money)? Doesn't that seem possible to you? How many Americans died in one terrorist attack? How does that compare to the number of Americans who have died in this war? Therefore, if the criterion is reduction in the loss of American life, which is the more prudent option? If such a condition does arise, what would be the long-term effects? It would not be hard for them to create problems that would make the OPEC crises of the '70s pale in comparison. (Have you read Dune? It is exactly about this. "He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." Is that not what terrorists believe? Would not allowing them a beachhead in Iraq give them the potential to "destroy a thing?") So, if the issue is cost, which is the more prudent option?

If we pullout, and a taliban-esque govt takes control and supports terrorist activities, then what? There's no way in hell that we could invade again because we'd already demonstrated that doesn't work. But what other options would there be? Economic sanctions? They've been so effective at keeping Iran in line. On that note, if we pull out, what do we do if Iran finishes their nuke and decides to "finish the holocaust" and take out Israel? Would invading them make any sense? It would just end up like another Iraq which is, per your view, unwinnable. Therefore a pullout now is a concession that we will never again be able to influence that part of the world, which is currently too important. If we could stop buying their oil, then sure, we could leave and start treating them like Africa, but I don't see that happening any time soon.

It may be true that we aren't making much of a difference right now. But which is the best course of action: making no difference, making little difference, or making a big difference?

I assume you've played Warcraft. I used to, and I was pretty good. To make it more interesting, I would play it such that the goal was to not have a single one of my guys die, or to beat the levels in the least amount of time. Sometimes I think Americans view war the same was as I did that game--that we are somehow so good that no one will die, that we can get the job done quick and easy, that it's a matter of stats. This is a great American delusion. War is not about being efficient (though that would be nice), nor is it about being surgically precise (though that helps). We never had enough troops/money to do the job right, but we can't send them because we're concerned more about stats than coming out on top.

What gives any of us ANY reason to think they're gonna stop killing each other? They have a common enemy, us, and they STILL havent stopped hating, and killing, each other to concentrate on us.

The only way you fix it is by doing what Saddam did.
You're right, it won't be easy or pretty. They may need to have a ultra-controlling govt that won't tolerate the current death squads, etc. As other posts have mentioned, such a govt may be able to transition into a better one. But if we pull out, then it is more than likely that it will end up like the taliban or even Iran, which is definitely not desirable.

[redav]

This is about as silly as an argument for war as you can possibly get. How many times this administration admitted to that Iraq has no link with Al-Queda? This is a FACT!!! I supported this war when it first started, not because of terrorism, but because of removal of a dictator. I still support this war, I have absolutely no confidence that this administration has any ability to win this war other than more and more troops.
Actually, it is silly to argue about the past. What is important is the future. al-qaeda IS in Iraq now.

BTW, study history will tell you, as long as there are inequity, there will be terrorists. What makes someone think this can be removed or stopped? Terrorism isn't some new form of modern society ill, it's been there since cavemen realizes they can beat the crap out of someone else. Looking at recent history shown it takes a long time, and outside influence has never made any difference. Sadly, we lost more people in Iraq now than 9/11. Not to mentioned countless number of Iraqi people who died for simply being a Sunnie or Shiite.
The goal is to minimize their ability to cause damage. Why are there so many fewer terrorists in 'civilized' countries as opposed to the mid-east? Why do we not have death squads roaming US cities?

[wordsmith]

If we leave, it is certain many will die, if we stay it is less certain that as many would die. I'd rather take the path with the greatest possibility of a better outcome even if it isnt much better.

You're way more certain than I am.

It became our job the day Radical Islamic fundamentalists set their sights on us. They feed from the current state of affairs over there and in order to cut their umbilical cord, we need to change the way things work over there as much as we can. So i'd say it very much is our job now, not because its our right, but because they made it our job.

Fundamentalists have set their sights on any and everyone who is not of their belief system, and always have. It didn't start happening on 9-11. I completely disagree that anybody "made us" go to war. Going to war under false premises was a smokescreen.

I think you misunderstood me there. I'm not saying we do what he did. All I was saying was that they were shown they could co-exist together and that means that they can again.

I don't misunderstand...they coexisted under the watchful eye of a violent dictatorship. I suppose they could again under those circumstances, yes.

We don't have to get them all to stop the ideology from being a threat to us. We just need to get enough to neuter the threat so to speak so it isnt as dangerous. Bush has said many times how this war is totally different from all other wars we have fought and the criteria for victory is also different. In this case, its reducing the threat to us.

So what's the threshold, then? What's the tipping point on how many radical fanatics it takes to pose a threat? Does Bush have a set number? What is "as dangerous?" Just a little dangerous?

True. But the religion itself isnt the problem. You know as well as I that the majority of muslims are good people.

The majority of Muslims aren't violent, fanatical extremists, just like the majority of Christians aren't. I never said the religion was the problem, I said that violent extremists are.

We need to stop the evil minority that is creating terrorism. Perhaps we cant convince them to change their views but what we can do is convince them not to risk it all in attacking us. Pragmatism and self interest extend to everyone, even terrorists. We show them that conducting attacks will bring a heavy price on them and those around them and they will be less likely to come after us. They can hate us all they want, but as long as they don't attack us, its ok.

Right, because if there are two things that fanatics and extremists of any color or ilk hold near and dear to their heart, they're logic and pragmatism. People for whom there is no greater glory to be gained than by blowing themselves up? Posterchildren for logic and pragmatism. When you're not afraid to die for what you believe, you're not going to sit back and say, "Oh, well, you know...it's not really very advantageous for us to attack."

We can only do so much words. We cant stop all terrorism and go after all its sponsors without significant damage to ourselves. If our allies were with us we could but despite what they all said after 9/11, they arent with us as much as they said.

Do you suppose nobody's with us, because it's a BAD IDEA, ill-conceived, and a massive, tragic mess? In any case, you missed my point, which was that we're picking and choosing because the motivation behind going to war was in no way altruistic freedom fighting, nor was the primary objective to "stop terror," (which won't be stopped).

No, for me the main impetus was national security.

Saddam Hussein = not a threat to us (yes, I know you disagree...and for the record, I preemptively disagree with your disagreement). A threat to his own people, absolutely. Just like many other dictators we don't go after. Although in retrospect, selling him those chemical weapons in the 80s...not such a good move on our part...national security, and all.

Altering the state of the middle east to stabilize it would reduce the ability of terrorists to breed there.

Right...because terrorists certainly aren't training in other non-Iraq areas we're not focusing on.

At this point, the impetus for continuing this war for me is an altruistic move for the people over there. We started this for our own reasons, the main ones being our own security with the Iraqi people's being secondary. With those objectives being a long way off if even possible, our goals must now turn to helping the people we have put in danger. Its the right thing to do and if successful, will help our original goals of self interest in the long run.



Seriously? This kind of explanation is exactly the type of reason why the current administration has lost credibility and respect, but back it up all you want. It's "Well, we screwed up, but now that we're here and seeing as how we put all these people in danger, let's pretend we're the Peace Corps, just here to help people (again, who WE put in danger)...but with guns."

This war was never about the "right thing to do." It was about oil.

This is about as silly as an argument for war as you can possibly get. How many times this administration admitted to that Iraq has no link with Al-Queda? This is a FACT!!! I supported this war when it first started, not because of terrorism, but because of removal of a dictator. I still support this war, I have absolutely no confidence that this administration has any ability to win this war other than more and more troops.

BTW, study history will tell you, as long as there are inequity, there will be terrorists. What makes someone think this can be removed or stopped? Terrorism isn't some new form of modern society ill, it's been there since cavemen realizes they can beat the crap out of someone else. Looking at recent history shown it takes a long time, and outside influence has never made any difference. Sadly, we lost more people in Iraq now than 9/11. Not to mentioned countless number of Iraqi people who died for simply being a Sunnie or Shiite.

100% absolutely agree (with the exception being that I did most assuredly NOT support the war when it first started, and I don't now).

[wordsmith]

You're right, it won't be easy or pretty.

Or, say, possible.

They may need to have a ultra-controlling govt

Wait, didn't they HAVE one of those already? Wasn't that what we ostensibly "liberated" them from?

But if we pull out, then it is more than likely that it will end up like the taliban or even Iran, which is definitely not desirable.

Well, WHO could have foreseen that? :rolleyes: Looks like the lack of foresight that you talk about definitely extends to American government and military decisions.

[Learjet434]

First lets look at last times...Al Gore and JOhn Kerry. Are you kidding me. These two are soo stiff and have no personality. Are those really the best two canadates they could come up with? I was angry about that last election. So now i'm looking at the new ones this year. We have hilary who wont win and Obama who also wont win. For one they wont win over the red states and two a lot of people wont vote for a woman or african american.....FOR PRESIDENT.

What ever happened to a candate like Bill Clinton? WHy cant they find that? Senator Evan Bayh would have been perfect but no one knew him yet or wanted to promote him and it makes me mad. All this energy is beign devoted to minority canadates because they make good news and chat but they wont actually win. I'm just afraid if they keep this up the Republicans will win again because they will be the best choice.

I think the Democrat candidates are pretty good so far. It's mostly Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards right now. I doubt Hillary will win for a variety of reasons. I think a fair number of people think she's a cold person and she's not doing so well on courting the business community. I'd say that a good number of voters want a candidate smarter than they are, but still could take the candidate out to have a beer. She's the most liberal of all the Democrat candidates in my opinion. Obama is a good choice, but I don't know how well he will be able to court southern voters or normal working class people. I know a good number of the African Americans are supporting Hillary rather than Obama.

Personally I'd like to see a moderate win the election in 2008, preferrably a moderate conservative. However, the far Christian right will tear apart most Republican candidates. For the Democrats, I'd prefer John Edwards over the rest of the group.

[wordsmith]

Actually, it is silly to argue about the past.

Isn't this kind of a cop-out that absolves decisionmakers from any previous mistakes, lapses in judgment, errors, and instances of out and out lies? After, if you push through the idea that if something's "in the past," and as such, there's no point in examining or revisiting it, doesn't that leave room for all kinds of things to be swept under the rug?

It's a good catchall phrase that prevents anybody from 'fessing up to the way things actually went down, though. Pretty convenient.

[PeakDream]

Actually, it is silly to argue about the past. What is important is the future. al-qaeda IS in Iraq now.

If we don't talk about it, we will never learn from it.

The goal is to minimize their ability to cause damage. Why are there so many fewer terrorists in 'civilized' countries as opposed to the mid-east? Why do we not have death squads roaming US cities?

There lies the problem, "military solution is impossible to resolve this issue". Education, jobs, food on the table stops terrorism faster than guns and bullets. Take the 350 billion dollars we spent on this war, and spend it in providing education, hospitals, economic development in the middle east will stop terrorists faster than 150,000 American troops.

[wordsmith]

There lies the problem, "military solution is impossible to resolve this issue". Education, jobs, food on the table stops terrorism faster than guns and bullets. Take the 350 billion dollars we spent on this war, and spend it in providing education, hospitals, economic development in the middle east will stop terrorists faster than 150,000 American troops.

I also feel that if you are truly championing humanitarian causes and truly wanting to be there for an ailing people, there are many ways to do so that have nothing to do with waging war and guns blazing.

[and1grad]

This is why it is a GREAT example. When performing calculations, you may not be able to accurately determine the answer to a specific problem, but you can determine the answer to a simpler problem that is always greater/less than the one in question and use that as a bound. Here's an example: integrating 1/(x² + x + 1) on [1,∞) is not exactly easy. But I know that it is < 1/x² (which is easy to integrate) for all x on [1,∞). Therefore, I can use the integral to the simpler problem as my upper bound--the actual answer cannot be more than that.
I'm frustrated that I have had enough math to know what you're talking about here.
For Japan & Germany, they were better in every way; therefore, the length of time we had to keep troops in those countries is the LOWER bound for how long we would need to keep troops in Iraq.
This is definitely true and NOT a good thing. Is it even acceptable to have our troops somewhere for a timeframe that can only mathematically be described as infinity?
Worse for whom? I'm talking about the US, not them (at what point is the damage done to the US less when pulling out than staying). You actually contradict yourself: "It WILL get worse at whatever point we do decide to pull out," and "we're making LITTLE difference there." Which is it, an emphatic it WILL get worse, meaning we are making enough of a difference that things will slide downhill enough for caps, or the difference we're making is so LITTLE that it warrants caps emphasizing how small our contribution is?
Worse for them. Its supposed to be about them. Its actually not contradictory b/c the little difference we're making is not keeping violence down by much. Regardless of when we leave, it will emphatically get worse. It probably would've been closer to contradictory if I emphasized how worse it would get rather than the fact that it would get worse.
I also see a symptomatic problem with the American view--it's nearsighted, and not just with war but everything else. Why is the savings rate negative? Why is so little being done for the environment? Why are we not fixing SS, Medicare, or the debt? Why are we not going full-steam ahead trying to ween ourselves from foreign oil? Why do people drive 80 mph when right in front of them is a red light with a stack of six cars parked at it? It is all because we, collectively, don't think/look ahead. For the situation in Iraq, what do you think will happen 5, 10, 20, 50 years from now?
The WORLD is nearsighted. Why wouldnt America be? Information is called "news." Look ahead all you want but none of us know whats really going to happen in those aforementioned timeframes so we have to decide, and act, on the information at present, flawed as it may be at times.
With the situation now, their govt is being propped up (by us). If it collapses, who is going to benefit? How did the taliban take control in Afghanistan? Do you not agree that it is quite possible that a similar situation could form in Iraq--a govt that allows terrorists groups to set up base (and in this case it would be worse because they could be directly funded with large amounts of oil money)? Doesn't that seem possible to you? How many Americans died in one terrorist attack? How does that compare to the number of Americans who have died in this war? Therefore, if the criterion is reduction in the loss of American life, which is the more prudent option? If such a condition does arise, what would be the long-term effects? It would not be hard for them to create problems that would make the OPEC crises of the '70s pale in comparison. (Have you read Dune? It is exactly about this. "He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." Is that not what terrorists believe? Would not allowing them a beachhead in Iraq give them the potential to "destroy a thing?") So, if the issue is cost, which is the more prudent option?
I dont know how the Taliban took over Afghanistan but Iraq is definitively not Afghanistan. I dont think all of the infighting in Iraq is conducive to setting up a terrorist regime, especially one as elaborate and dependent on cohesiveness as the Taliban. I could make a good argument that stabilizing Iraq is MORE beneficial to Al Quaeda. Also, you really cant make the argument that we're reducing the loss of American lives by going to war. That dog wont hunt. Terrorism is nowhere NEAR pervasive enough in our country for that to be a good argument. The only reason it got us to war this time is b/c Congress was put in a position, by our Admin, to look unpatriotic if they didnt allow our warmongerers to feed. The new McCarthyism...you're unAmerican!!
If we pullout, and a taliban-esque govt takes control and supports terrorist activities, then what? There's no way in hell that we could invade again because we'd already demonstrated that doesn't work. But what other options would there be? Economic sanctions? They've been so effective at keeping Iran in line. On that note, if we pull out, what do we do if Iran finishes their nuke and decides to "finish the holocaust" and take out Israel? Would invading them make any sense? It would just end up like another Iraq which is, per your view, unwinnable. Therefore a pullout now is a concession that we will never again be able to influence that part of the world, which is currently too important. If we could stop buying their oil, then sure, we could leave and start treating them like Africa, but I don't see that happening any time soon.
Just to be short, I dont believe in the "you cant go back if it doesnt go right the first time" theory. I dont believe that pulling out of a losing situation with no foreseeable path to victory is a sign of weakness. I think staying is.
It may be true that we aren't making much of a difference right now. But which is the best course of action: making no difference, making little difference, or making a big difference?

I assume you've played Warcraft. I used to, and I was pretty good. To make it more interesting, I would play it such that the goal was to not have a single one of my guys die, or to beat the levels in the least amount of time. Sometimes I think Americans view war the same was as I did that game--that we are somehow so good that no one will die, that we can get the job done quick and easy, that it's a matter of stats. This is a great American delusion. War is not about being efficient (though that would be nice), nor is it about being surgically precise (though that helps). We never had enough troops/money to do the job right, but we can't send them because we're concerned more about stats than coming out on top.
I can only assume that first question is rhetorical. I've never played Warcraft (I stink at computer games for some reason) but I dont think America views wars that way really. At least, not the people who DONT want to go. People who vote FOR war think its easy like that...people who dont realize that wars just mean people die and ultimately for policy and paperwork.
You're right, it won't be easy or pretty. They may need to have a ultra-controlling govt that won't tolerate the current death squads, etc. As other posts have mentioned, such a govt may be able to transition into a better one. But if we pull out, then it is more than likely that it will end up like the taliban or even Iran, which is definitely not desirable.
But then all we're doing is re-establishing a version of the previous regime and hoping that whoever is in power b/c of it, has no problem with eventually disseminating that power and ultimately stepping down. Thats a lot to ask.

[Bman120]

I completely disagree that anybody "made us" go to war. Going to war under false premises was a smokescreen.


Their attacks on us forced a response. We had a choice between doing nothing and letting this continue without any effort or to try and stop it as best we could. Perhaps there were other choices, but none that gave a better option.

Fundamentalists have set their sights on any and everyone who is not of their belief system, and always have. It didn't start happening on 9-11.

No it didnt but it took 9/11 to jar us into action about it. The other attacks were ignored by both Clinton and Bush to our peril.

Also, what you said above proves my point about terrorists being pragmatic. They claim to hate anyone not of their beliefs but yet they dont target France, or Germany or Spain since they left Iraq. Why is that when they clearly have the capability to hit Europe at will? Because logic and pragmatic thinking tells them that if they want to keep the west divided, you don't attack everyone.

I don't misunderstand...they coexisted under the watchful eye of a violent dictatorship. I suppose they could again under those circumstances, yes.

My point was if they could co-exist then and in many cases, continue to do so until the golden mosque bombing, they can again given the chance to do so without fear of retribution from militias. And this atmosphere can be achieved if the surge works properly.

So what's the threshold, then? What's the tipping point on how many radical fanatics it takes to pose a threat? Does Bush have a set number? What is "as dangerous?" Just a little dangerous?

There doesnt need to be a set number. Like Bush has said, this war will be generational. We will need to fight these people for a long time. There will not be a big declaration of victory for the overall war on terror.

Right, because if there are two things that fanatics and extremists of any color or ilk hold near and dear to their heart, they're logic and pragmatism. People for whom there is no greater glory to be gained than by blowing themselves up? Posterchildren for logic and pragmatism. When you're not afraid to die for what you believe, you're not going to sit back and say, "Oh, well, you know...it's not really very advantageous for us to attack."


I referenced this in the beginning of this post. They are far more cunning and pragmatic than you give them credit for. Their choices of attacks and their statements prove this.

Do you suppose nobody's with us, because it's a BAD IDEA, ill-conceived, and a massive, tragic mess?

If they had helped instead of gloating, maybe it wouldnt have been anywhere near as tragic. Food for thought.

In any case, you missed my point, which was that we're picking and choosing because the motivation behind going to war was in no way altruistic freedom fighting, nor was the primary objective to "stop terror," (which won't be stopped).

The primary objective was WMD's which werent there. You dont just give up when the main objective becomes moot. You carry on the secondary objectives, being stopping terror and helping the people, among other things.

Saddam Hussein = not a threat to us (yes, I know you disagree...and for the record, I preemptively disagree with your disagreement). A threat to his own people, absolutely. Just like many other dictators we don't go after.

And by threatening his own people and neighbors, he set the stage to make them vunerable to fundamentalists. Its very asymmetrical as is this whole damn conflict but these things do tie into one another.

Although in retrospect, selling him those chemical weapons in the 80s...not such a good move on our part...national security, and all.

Thats a whole other thread in and of itself but it comes down to the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Also, friends become enemies and vice versa. Its the nature of history and in this case, we paid a price for calling him friend back then.

This war was never about the "right thing to do." It was about oil.


Why do you think that?

Right...because terrorists certainly aren't training in other non-Iraq areas we're not focusing on.


You dont change things by doing it all at once. You change parts and let the effect ripple outwards like waves on an ocean or like dominos. Thats why going into certain countries would work.

Seriously? This kind of explanation is exactly the type of reason why the current administration has lost credibility and respect, but back it up all you want. It's "Well, we screwed up, but now that we're here and seeing as how we put all these people in danger, let's pretend we're the Peace Corps, just here to help people (again, who WE put in danger)...but with guns."


You put the we in there in capitals. Why? Because you were making the point that its because of our actions, no matter how well intentioned, that they are in danger. And you are right. So in that situation, what do we do? Acknowledge our role and leave them to their own devices? Is that how things are done?

I dont subscribe to that. I believe that when you make a mess, you do what you can to fix it. This is pretty much the last shot we have to make this right. Do we blow it and go or do we try it out for their sake?

We have no idea if this will work or not, its only been in play for a very short time. Even the head of the ISG says to give it time. I say we owe it to them to give it this last chance. If this one shows no signs of working after a legnth of time determined by Petraeus, then the president wont have the political capital left to do anything else and we'll need to pull back and redeploy. But until that time comes, we must try to help them cut the violence.

Terrorism is nowhere NEAR pervasive enough in our country for that to be a good argument.

It doesnt need to be. All it takes is a handful of people to kill thousands.

[and1grad]

It doesnt need to be. All it takes is a handful of people to kill thousands.
Ya but the argument was that this war is saving American lives. Its not.

[Bman120]

Ya but the argument was that this war is saving American lives. Its not.

The war was started because he was thought to have weapons dangerous to us. So i'd say it was about saving American lives.

[and1grad]

The war was started because he was thought to have weapons dangerous to us. So i'd say it was about saving American lives.
The reasons behind the war are clearly debatable tho. I guess we'll jut have to agree to disagree.

[PeakDream]

Wow, I'm not sure how to present my statements anymore. If someone insists that Iraq attacked us or have anything to do with Al-Queda, or suggested that this admin knew there are WMDs even tho everyone and their mothers couldn't find them. Then I supposed there is nothing that can be presented as facts anymore.

This war isn't helping the goal on stopping terrorism or even contain it. Since the war, we have lost all the prestige once held so highly around the world. If we spend half the resource that we spent on the war by rebuilding Afghanistan, then we could've achieved much much more of our goal than warring in Iraq.

[HollyM]

I'm not too worried about some of the democrat candidates because as far as I'm concerned I don't think any of them could be as bad as Bush. Perhaps this viewpoint may be unpopular with some of you but I don't know a single person who supports Bush in the UK (apart from Tony of course!) and who thinks he's helping to make the world a better place. There was a debate about it on a national radio station and they could barely get anyone to defend his actions in Iraq. There are so many holes in his arguments in attacking Iraq in the first place. He said himself that 'one of the hardest parts of my job is connecting Iraq to the war on terror', invading Afganistan had direct relevance to 9/11 but Iraq had no relevance at all. There are so many other countries, e.g Zimbadwe, North Korea where people are living under dictators and tyrannical regimes, he might have shaken a fist at North Korea a few times but he's never taken it any further and ignored many other awful regimes so the 'democratic' argument doesn't stand up to closer scrutiny. His intelligence was wrong or he used weapons of mass destruction as an excuse as none have ever been found in Iraq while far closer to America North Korea was building it's nuclear project. Personally I think it's about one thing, that valuable substance called oil and the growing competition for it from other areas of the world. I watched Top Gear last week that went into New Orleans and was shocked at the state the city was in ages after hurrican Katrina. I just hope that whoever gets elected follows a different path, looks at the longer view of the environment instead of assuming that global warming is a myth/the second coming is on its way so there's no need to bother etc. Also that they realise that the days of the US being able to colonize, invade countries at will are long gone. I don't sympathise with the terrorists actions in any way but I can see why many in that region are frustrated and angry. It is arrogant to invade another country, e.g how would you feel if China decided to do the same as the US wasn't communist. Also there is real poverty there and we are taking their natural resources to fund our comfortable lifestyles.

[wordsmith]

There doesnt need to be a set number. Like Bush has said, this war will be generational. We will need to fight these people for a long time. There will not be a big declaration of victory for the overall war on terror.

This sounds to me a whole lot like "unwinnable war." You could battle this stuff FOREVER. Literally forever.

The primary objective was WMD's which werent there. You dont just give up when the main objective becomes moot. You carry on the secondary objectives, being stopping terror and helping the people, among other things.

Ordinarily, you as an administration admit that you were not in the right, which was glaringly apparent and proceed accordingly, rather than fabricate reasons for being there and refuse to back down even in the face of it being widely known that you engaged under blatantly false auspices. Or at least, you do if you're concerned with things like credibility, global reputation as the leader of a decent country, and not killing a bunch of people due to fraudulent calls to action and lying to the American public.

And by threatening his own people and neighbors, he set the stage to make them vunerable to fundamentalists.

Him and various warlords and regimes throughout the rest of the Arab world. But that didn't matter so much to our govt. when we were funding him.

Why do you think that?

Because we aren't dedicating time, trillions and trillions and trillions of dollars, and countless American lives to "liberate" countries that don't have ties to resources we covet. Our administration is not concerned about atrocities.

It doesnt need to be. All it takes is a handful of people to kill thousands.

Which really a good point when it comes to your earlier assertion that "taking out enough terrorists to teach them a lesson" is going to serve any purpose. You will always have a handful capable of killing thousands.


I did have more point by point comments to make, but partway through, I realized that PeakDream is right...I could go tit for tat, point, counterpoint, rebuttal, rebuttal all day long, and for no real reason other than improving my typing skills. Because the truth is, there's no point in attempting a discussion with someone who is convinced that Iraq attacked America, that the American public was not lied to and shoved into a hideous mess of a war with false information as the primary justification, and who honestly seems to truly believe that continuing in an ill-conceived war where many, many, many more are going to die absolutely needlessly and with nothing more than has already been accomplished to show for it is in some way a humanitarian effort. No point.

[wordsmith]

I'm not too worried about some of the democrat candidates because as far as I'm concerned I don't think any of them could be as bad as Bush. Perhaps this viewpoint may be unpopular with some of you but I don't know a single person who supports Bush in the UK (apart from Tony of course!) and who thinks he's helping to make the world a better place.

I couldn't agree more in the lack of support/faith department, and I definitely don't think that he's concerned with making the world a better place.


I watched Top Gear last week that went into New Orleans and was shocked at the state the city was in ages after hurrican Katrina.

I'm currently working on a story about this, having interviewed many recently returned volunteer groups, and it's not just New Orleans, which wasn't entirely decimated, but the entire delta, including many Mississippi and Louisiana towns that were utterly wiped off the plant. It's estimated that about 5% of the work that needs to be done to rebuild has been started (not finished, just that that percentage is all that's even been TOUCHED. And so much of it has been under the steam of charitable organizations that are finding their resources tapped by this point in time. And there is easily ten years of recovery down the road before anything even begins to resemble a shred of what it was before, so I don't know what happens when all the charitable groups that are doing what little has been done are tappped out, becuase it will happen a lot sooner than 10 years from now.

[redav]

This is definitely true and NOT a good thing. Is it even acceptable to have our troops somewhere for a timeframe that can only mathematically be described as infinity?
Actually, it would be defined as "undefined." Any such endeavor cannot be done quickly.

Worse for them. Its supposed to be about them. Its actually not contradictory b/c the little difference we're making is not keeping violence down by much. Regardless of when we leave, it will emphatically get worse. It probably would've been closer to contradictory if I emphasized how worse it would get rather than the fact that it would get worse.
If it's about them, then why is everyone talking about American casualties? Why is THAT the justification for bringing the troops home? Do you think Cindy Sheehan et al care about how many Iraqis die? Americans don't care about them, they care about us; they don't care how many thousands Hussein killed, as long as our troops aren't hurt. They don't care how many kill each other in civil war as long as it's not us. Very sad, but that's the way Americans think.

"the little difference we're making is not keeping violence down by much" -- so, if we're not keeping it down by "much," then when we leave it should not get "much" worse
"when we leave, it will emphatically get worse" -- so, our being there is preventing it from being "emphatically worse," so that means the difference we're currently making is keeping it from being "emphatically worse"
Since I don't know anyone else who would say that "not much" worse = "emphatically worse," which is it?

The WORLD is nearsighted. Why wouldnt America be? Information is called "news." Look ahead all you want but none of us know whats really going to happen in those aforementioned timeframes so we have to decide, and act, on the information at present, flawed as it may be at times.
So, we are to act on the info we have. Then look at the info and run the scenarios, estimating with your best guesses and historical comparisons. Businesses can do this, so it's not some "magical" request that others do, too.

For example, using history as a reference: The goal of the terrorists that are there (insurgents) is to destabilize the govt. They do not want anyone strong in control, because that is what is necessary to kick them out. Even if they do not topple a govt, they want to influence its decisions--first, they will want a govt to "make peace." ("Leave us alone or we'll keep killing people") Think of what happened in Spain. Once they get that, then they will work on getting sympathetic people in the govt so that they are not just tolerated, but supported. That would then recreate Afghanistan, but then they have access to far more resources and are in a much better position to affect us than before. Would it be the same as the taliban? No, but the end effect would be. If they were able to launch strikes on us (the Cole, embassies, WTC twice, etc) before, how much worse would it be? They could manipulate oil prices. They could more easily blow up facilities in Saudi and encourage the anti-American sentiment there (not to mention attempts to destabilize that govt). They could commandeer oil tankers and destroy them off the US coast. They could disrupt oil production and bring our economy to a standstill. And the scary thing is that none of this is far-fetched.

An unstable Iraq IS favorable to terrorists. Destabilizing govts is what they do. It has even worked with our govt--the American public no longer wants to fight them; they want to leave them alone ("make peace"). There are two scenarios for a stable Iraq: one that doesn't tolerate terrorism, and one that does. If they don't tolerate it, it is bad for the terrorists, if it's the latter, then it's better for them (it actually would be the end-stage for them).

I have no doubts that an unstable Iraq without outside support from us (because no one else is willing to help) will topple. The civil war is exactly what they need to get power. If they do get power, again, I have no doubts terrorists will attack us again. This is my opinion--I could be wrong, but it is strongly rooted in historical events. But hey, let's go ahead and cut funding so that we have to pull out, and then we can just see what happens. It's not like if you're wrong we're gambling with anyone's lives or anything.

I do agree with you that we were manipulated. Also, we've made some other terrible mistakes along the way. That fact doesn't change the hole we are in.


Just to be short, I dont believe in the "you cant go back if it doesnt go right the first time" theory. I dont believe that pulling out of a losing situation with no foreseeable path to victory is a sign of weakness. I think staying is.
Okay, let me get this straight. The situation is unwinnable. We leave, and it gets "emphatically worse." Something happens that causes us to consider re-invading Iraq, exactly how would that war be winnable if the present one is not? It will be worse than it is now, yet winnable? How does that work? Also, like the boy who cried wolf, the American public wouldn't fall for arguments to go back to Iraq, even if they were valid.

There is a precedent in American law that basically says if you stop enforcing a law/rule, after enough time, you loose the right to enforce it. If we pull out, we will never again have the credibility to do it again, even if it really is necessary. It will simply be "look at Vietnam; look at Iraq." Will pulling out save face? Probably here in the US and Europe, but more importantly, what will Iran and N Korea think? Will they respect/fear us more because of it? They would broadcast that America was defeated, that America is weak. They would act with even more impunity than they already do.


I can only assume that first question is rhetorical. I've never played Warcraft (I stink at computer games for some reason) but I dont think America views wars that way really. At least, not the people who DONT want to go. People who vote FOR war think its easy like that...people who dont realize that wars just mean people die and ultimately for policy and paperwork.
Really? Then why are we so shocked that 3000 US solders have died? (I remember the public outrage when the number hit 100.) There has never been a military operation of this scale for this duration with fewer deaths. More people die each year from falls (well over 10k / year!) than have died or probably will die the whole time we're there. I don't want to diminish the unfortunate impact that it has, but that is the nature of the beast. As far as deaths and casualties, this war has been unprecedentedly successful, so why have so many turned on it for that reason? They once supported it, but now they don't. Why would they do that unless they didn't expect there to be numerous casualties and a long, hard-fought campaign. Now that things aren't going as easily as they expected, they want to turn it off like a game.

I do think the war-hawks are a bit too eager and cavalier. They seemed to have believed the hype about how good we were. But then again, no one would have approved sending as many as should have been sent in the first place.

The argument "I supported the war before, but now that I know I was lied to, I don't" is total BS. You can't go back in time and change what happened. In my area, one of the major freeways is being completely overhauled. There was a lot of debate before, and I personally think it shouldn't have happened. But it did, and now they're in the middle of a great big mess. Even if everyone were to admit that it was a bad idea, that doesn't justify leaving it as is. If anyone wants to leave it, then they need to present reasons leaving it is better and not just "we never should have started; we were lied to" because that plain doesn't address the issue of the current mess.

But then all we're doing is re-establishing a version of the previous regime and hoping that whoever is in power b/c of it, has no problem with eventually disseminating that power and ultimately stepping down. Thats a lot to ask.
A strong, no-nonsense govt is not quite the same as a murderous despot. It certainly would be better than Hussein. Pulling it off would be tough, though.

Isn't this kind of a cop-out that absolves decisionmakers from any previous mistakes, lapses in judgment, errors, and instances of out and out lies? After, if you push through the idea that if something's "in the past," and as such, there's no point in examining or revisiting it, doesn't that leave room for all kinds of things to be swept under the rug?

It's a good catchall phrase that prevents anybody from 'fessing up to the way things actually went down, though. Pretty convenient.
Hmm, did I say not to learn from the past and so as to not commit the same mistake? Don't think so. Did I suggest we sweep it under the rug? Can't say that I did. Or maybe that there shouldn't be consequences for it? I'm pretty sure that wasn't there, either. Actually, as I recall, I mentioned something about the future, and learning from past mistakes would be closely related to worrying about the future, but hey, obviously I don't know what I said, so who am I to comment?

If you wake up one day with your house burned down, which is more important--which should be done first: ask why it burned down, or figure out what you are going to do now that your house has burned down? Figuring out why it burned down doesn't change the fact that it has, in fact, burned down. And regardless what you discover, you still need to figure out what you are going to do.

But who am I to say what people should & shouldn't do? Go ahead and debate something that we can't change. Throw the blame around all you want. Let me know when that helps us get out of the hole we've dug. :rolleyes:

[wordsmith]

Go ahead and debate something that we can't change. Throw the blame around all you want. Let me know when that helps us get out of the hole we've dug. :rolleyes:

Actually, this thread, sans philosophies of war, is about whether or not people feel disappointed by the prospects in terms of a potential change of regime in our own country, not really about how people who are against war plan to dig us out of a hole that poor leadership dug and flung us into in the first place. By saying, "Go ahead and debate something we can't change," you come off as flinging absolution the way of those who created the situation. And the American public finally seems to be wising up to the fact that continuing to do this is a load of crap. That being the case, no, I'm not at all disappointed with the prospect of a change in guard. I'm hopeful.

[dongle]

does anyone know the rough number of Iraqi civilian deaths since we invaded Iraq? I heard somewhere it has been many thousands per month. Which means our invasion has led to significantly more Iraqi deaths than the war crimes they executed Saddam for. Interesting.......

I wonder really what would happen if we did just up an leave tomorrow. They keep saying chaos will descend and terrorists will win. Seems to me the terrorists have already won, how much worse can it possibly get.

Also, this may sound a little naive, but has anyone tried actually sitting down with the terrorist leaders and asking them what they want? I've heard a million times they are religious fanatics who just want to kill americans. Period. But I wonder if there may be more to it than that, it does sound like an aweful conveinient excuse to give the redneck american crowd as justification to pound your chest and go terrorist huntin. Rednecks hate talk and negotiation.

[HollyM]

"They could manipulate oil prices. They could more easily blow up facilities in Saudi and encourage the anti-American sentiment there (not to mention attempts to destabilize that govt). They could commandeer oil tankers and destroy them off the US coast. They could disrupt oil production and bring our economy to a standstill. And the scary thing is that none of this is far-fetched."

This is why I hope that whoever is elected in 2008 has not got a Bush/oil crony mentality because the blunt truth is we've got to become less reliant on the black gold not obsessed with grabbing every pot of it we can. Sounds impossible, yes perhaps, but it's a finite source, demand for it is going to increase massively with the current economic situation creating more and more conflict and our use of it is wrecking the environment. Also I can see why so many in the middle east do not view US policies in a positive way. Time and time again they have supported puppet regimes purely because they satisfy their needs, e.g Egypt and Saudi Arabia plus they are two faced when it comes to democracy. I don't agree with some aspects of Hamas but they are popular with many Palestinians because of their community support but when they were elected democratically the US and EU withdrew a lot of funding, the underlying message being that democracy is only allowed if they choose the same party as big brother.

[cheshrcarol]

Also, this may sound a little naive, but has anyone tried actually sitting down with the terrorist leaders and asking them what they want? I've heard a million times they are religious fanatics who just want to kill americans. Period. But I wonder if there may be more to it than that, it does sound like an aweful conveinient excuse to give the redneck american crowd as justification to pound your chest and go terrorist huntin. Rednecks hate talk and negotiation.
I've kind of wondered that myself - at least about Al Quaida. But no one wants to "negotiate" with terrorists. As for the Iraqi's still fighting, it's pretty obvious they just want the American troops to leave.

[wordsmith]

Hmmm, what DO we think terrorists want?

[pisces2473]

Hmmm, what DO we think terrorists want?
77 virgins?

[cheshrcarol]

Hmmm, what DO we think terrorists want?
I smell spinoff ;)

[and1grad]

Dont terrorists want to inflict pain, ruin lives, etc? What are we expecting them to want? A hug? "I'd really just like a decent ham sandwich."

[wordsmith]

This is my thought.

[capella]

This tangent is interesting. I've yet to hear any decent explanation of how this war will NOT in fact become our Vietnam. I presumed this was going to be like Vietnam when this crap all started only to have lots of people I knew at the time scoff and roll their eyes.

The problem is the same. You cannot fight an idea. You can't blow up convictions. Don't the "terrorists are so scary" people think that people who lived through the Cold War (and no, I don't mean while in elementary school and lived through the Cold War since the vast majority of our age group don't really remember much of that) and before weren't scared of communism in much the same way?

I'd say more but Jess has done a bang up job of voicing my thoughts on this issue. As usual.

[allie1105]

I just got a chance to read through this thread - to get back to what the original topic was, I am somewhat disappointed in the Democrat candidates. I think that we need a president with some foreign policy experience, which Hillary has and Obama lacks...but I do NOT feel that Hillary would make a good president. I think Obama is a breath of fresh air, but he doesn't have the expertise we need to clean up the mess that Bush has gotten us into.

As for the Republican ticket (I have been out of the loop, so please excuse my ignorance here), I have heard talk about Giuliani and John McCain. John McCain actually has some foreign policy experience, and I have always liked Giuliani...but this is where I am torn. Do we really want another Republican running our country for the next few years? I feel scarred from Bush...

[Bman120]

This sounds to me a whole lot like "unwinnable war." You could battle this stuff FOREVER. Literally forever.

Not really, its just different. The war on terror isnt just soldiers going out and fighting. Its about covert ops, financial sanctions and other money related actions, diplomacy, advising other militaries and so on. At least a few aspects of this will go on for sometime to stop terrorism and keep it from reforming. Its a longterm and tough effort but its not impossible. You just need to understand the goals of the war, being the security of America and its allies being stregnthened by the significant reduction of the ability of terrorists to harm us.

Ordinarily, you as an administration admit that you were not in the right, which was glaringly apparent and proceed accordingly

I guess its the proceed accordingly bit where things get ambigious here. What one person considers appropriate, another things is way out of proportion. What I can tell you is that no good leader can come out and say, screw it I was totally wrong, this was a big mistake and frankly I have no clue how to get us out of this with anything resembling dignity. No good leader can do that. A good leader provides hope for his/her people no matter what. Because without hope, people can't function and thats when the real problems set in.

Him and various warlords and regimes throughout the rest of the Arab world. But that didn't matter so much to our govt. when we were funding him.


Its like I said before. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Sometimes you have to compromise one thing to take care of a greater threat. It's happened throughout history and this was no different. It was a different world back then and we acted accordingly then and we do the same now.

Because we aren't dedicating time, trillions and trillions and trillions of dollars, and countless American lives to "liberate" countries that don't have ties to resources we covet.

The oil may be in that region but so are many other things we need to deal with. Just because our original intentions werent to liberate to save people doesnt automatically make them oil. That's jumping to conclusions without anywhere near enough evidence to back them up.

[Our administration is not concerned about atrocities./QUOTE]

Then why is it one of the few in the world to push for an end to them in Darfur?

[QUOTE]Which really a good point when it comes to your earlier assertion that "taking out enough terrorists to teach them a lesson" is going to serve any purpose. You will always have a handful capable of killing thousands.


Fair point. Though getting those few over here is a lot harder when their infrastructure at home is ripped apart and those who know how to get them here and fund them are dead.

I could go tit for tat, point, counterpoint, rebuttal, rebuttal all day long, and for no real reason other than improving my typing skills. Because the truth is, there's no point in attempting a discussion with someone who is convinced that Iraq attacked America,

When did I say Iraq attacked us? They didnt, thats why this was called a pre-emptive war Words, because Iraq didnt attack us. And I never claimed otherwise.

that the American public was not lied to and shoved into a hideous mess of a war with false information as the primary justification

Maybe we were misled. I dont know. That still doesnt change the fact that the war itself was fought for good reasons in my view. If the president had to overemphasize certain parts of the case to get the American people to go along then so be it. Look at past presidents, many of whom are admired and you see them plotting similar things in the past. Its part of politics past and present for a reason, because in the long run sometimes it needs to be done. Most people cant understand that now because we dont have the benefit of history to show us why we had to do this. I hope someday we will so it will make sense to more people.

Also, this may sound a little naive, but has anyone tried actually sitting down with the terrorist leaders and asking them what they want? I've heard a million times they are religious fanatics who just want to kill americans. Period. But I wonder if there may be more to it than that, it does sound like an aweful conveinient excuse to give the redneck american crowd as justification to pound your chest and go terrorist huntin

There are a ton of reasons why this will not work. I'll go into a few.

First there is the give a mouse a cookie, he'll want a piece of cheese issue. We start talking to them and trying to make a deal, they will want more and more once they see we are willing to compromise. That will just end with either deadlock or them gaining a lot just to stop bombing us.

Second, if we go to the table with these people now, we will obviously be coming from a position of weakness in relation to them. And our presense at the table after announcing the policy of non negotiation with terrorists will only make our weakness more obvious. And in any negotiation, you never want to be coming from a position of weakness. Never. This is why we cant talk to Iran about Iraq now. We'll be coming from a position of weakness in relation to Tehran.

Third, the demands they have already made are too excessive anyhow ie leaving the middle east, conversion to radical islam, abandoning Israel and so on. These are unacceptable and that puts the kaibosh on talking anyhow.

The only exception to this were the non fundamentalist insurgents in Iraq. They were looking for other goals and there have been discussions with them in the past and I bet there are still some now. And these are encouraging because if we can accomodate them, we can split them away from the jihadists.

[ebruening]

I'm not impressed. I like Hillary, although I don't think she is electable. Similarly, Obama seems like a decent enough candidate, but I don't see him as electable either. Furthermore, I'm skeptical of Obama's relatively short time in elected office. At least Hillary has a relatively long span of time in politics, in some form or another.

That being said, I refuse to vote for a Democratic candidate simply because he or she is "not a member of Bush's party." I'm not a party-line voter, but it is rare, indeed, that I vote Republican. I'll vote for my home state's Chuck Hagel, because I genuinely respect his stance on the Iraq war.

The Dems simply have to put out stronger candidates, in order for me to feel any strong leaning toward a particular candidate. In short, I need to feel like a candidate is electable, and I haven't seen the Dems put forth anybody who fits that description at this point. Granted, the primaries are still some time away, but it bothers me that the two front-runners for the Democratic nomination seem like such radical choices. Sadly, I've spoken to too many people who see Hillary as the token "female candidate" and the same people believe Obama is the token "black candidate."

I will vote in the '08 election. That's a given. However, I don't see myself getting too wrapped up in the upcoming presidential election. I had my heart broken while watching the '04 results. I was hurt and angry for weeks afterward. I'm just hoping that Gen X and Gen Y turn out in droves at election time. In my opinion, the loss of the youth vote - and not any sort of tampering with election results - is what cost the Dems in '04.

If you want to talk about concerns, let's discuss the current Supreme Court justices...

[wordsmith]

What I can tell you is that no good leader can come out and say, screw it I was totally wrong, this was a big mistake and frankly I have no clue how to get us out of this with anything resembling dignity. No good leader can do that. A good leader provides hope for his/her people no matter what. Because without hope, people can't function and thats when the real problems set in.

Seriously? Integrity and honesty make for a poor leader? New one on me. Admitting you screwed up is the ONLY way to save dignity. And I would hope to GOD no person who professes to be a leader would ever consider saying, "I have no clue how to get us out of this." If you have no clue how to get us out of this, that's a pretty big indication you should have never gotten us into it to begin with.

You can't built hope based on lies, arrogance, shoving stuff under the rug, having toadies take the fall for you, backpedaling, throwing up smokescreens, and trying to throw attention elsewhere.

When did I say Iraq attacked us? They didnt, thats why this was called a pre-emptive war Words, because Iraq didnt attack us. And I never claimed otherwise.

Except on top of page six of this thread, your first post, in response to my assertion that nobody forced us to wage war, you did say exactly that...PeakDream caught it, too:

Quote:
I completely disagree that anybody "made us" go to war. Going to war under false premises was a smokescreen.

Their attacks on us forced a response. We had a choice between doing nothing and letting this continue without any effort or to try and stop it as best we could. Perhaps there were other choices, but none that gave a better option.[/b]



Maybe we were misled. I dont know. That still doesnt change the fact that the war itself was fought for good reasons in my view. If the president had to overemphasize certain parts of the case to get the American people to go along then so be it. Look

Again, if you think that being lied to and people being killed because of those lies is justifiable and cool on the part of our president, and can support an administration that does these things, I'm just over here taking typing practice again, because there's really no point in attempting any kind of a discussion. I personally find being okay with, "Please, show your strong leadership qualities by lying to the people who elected you" to be terrifying and unconscionable, but clearly, you don't.

[PeakDream]

Maybe we were misled. I dont know.
Seriously, you are making this statement without flinching? Not even Bill O'Reilly can make that statement without blushing.

If the president had to overemphasize certain parts of the case to get the American people to go along then so be it.
In another word, lying is ok? It's clear that none of the so called evidences are true. You can blame it on CIA, but if our intelligent on Iraq were so bad, what are the odds of us winning in the future conflicts?

Look at past presidents, many of whom are admired and you see them plotting similar things in the past. Its part of politics past and present for a reason, because in the long run sometimes it needs to be done. Most people cant understand that now because we dont have the benefit of history to show us why we had to do this. I hope someday we will so it will make sense to more people.
Example please!

First there is the give a mouse a cookie, he'll want a piece of cheese issue. We start talking to them and trying to make a deal, they will want more and more once they see we are willing to compromise. That will just end with either deadlock or them gaining a lot just to stop bombing us.
And bombing the shit out of a random country will somehow address this?

Second, if we go to the table with these people now, we will obviously be coming from a position of weakness in relation to them. And our presense at the table after announcing the policy of non negotiation with terrorists will only make our weakness more obvious. And in any negotiation, you never want to be coming from a position of weakness. Never. This is why we cant talk to Iran about Iraq now. We'll be coming from a position of weakness in relation to Tehran.
It's this administration that put us in this bad situation, what in god's name makes you think they can get us out of this?

The only exception to this were the non fundamentalist insurgents in Iraq. They were looking for other goals and there have been discussions with them in the past and I bet there are still some now. And these are encouraging because if we can accomodate them, we can split them away from the jihadists.
I don't know, I guess I watch different news channels and read different news paper. If Sunnie killing Shiite and Shiite killing Sunnie aren't examples of extreme Islamic terrorists, then I honestly can't say what terrorism is. Perhaps only when American lives involved, then it's terrorism.

Please, let's agree that we disagree. I'm just glad the war is going to end soon.

[Jersey_Steve]

I made mention of this in another thread, but the Democrats have already lost. This country, no matter how enlightened, how advanced we think we've become, will not elect a woman or a minority. Scream racism and sexism all you want at me, but it just will not happen. We are not there folks. Individually, perhaps. As a collective? No chance.

[wordsmith]

I know you're politically incorrect and all, but I'm still going to have to make sure that you remove the portion of your post that criticizes people's faith. You're not slamming fundamentalist terrorists, you're slamming moderate practitioners of the Islamic faith, calling them backward, and that's not gonna fly.

[dongle]

There are a ton of reasons why this will not work. I'll go into a few.

First there is the give a mouse a cookie, he'll want a piece of cheese issue. We start talking to them and trying to make a deal, they will want more and more once they see we are willing to compromise. That will just end with either deadlock or them gaining a lot just to stop bombing us.


Ok, this may very well be true. But it doesnt mean we cant try. Plus, it seems to me this excuse could be used for pretty much any negotiation any time for any reason.


Second, if we go to the table with these people now, we will obviously be coming from a position of weakness in relation to them. And our presense at the table after announcing the policy of non negotiation with terrorists will only make our weakness more obvious. And in any negotiation, you never want to be coming from a position of weakness. Never. This is why we cant talk to Iran about Iraq now. We'll be coming from a position of weakness in relation to Tehran.


Well our position of weakness probably isnt going to change and once again, it doesnt mean you cant try. Sure maybe negotiation will fail miserably and we will continue fighting, but it's not like we would then somehow be worse off than we are now. I dont think it would be a policy change either. We traditionally have always said we would not negotiate with terrorists but before Iraq that basically just meant when someone was kidnapped and held for ransom we wouldnt pay it. This was supposed to deter terrorists from kidnapping since they werent going to get anything out of it. The whole organized suicide bombing thing is sort of new.


Third, the demands they have already made are too excessive anyhow ie leaving the middle east, conversion to radical islam, abandoning Israel and so on. These are unacceptable and that puts the kaibosh on talking anyhow.


Yes some of their demands are excessive. But that is what negotiation is for. We give a little, they give a little. Like maybe we agree to leave the middle east if they agree to tolerate non Islamic fundamentalists and not try to destabalize any more countries. They may go for that, probably not, but maybe. Couldnt we at least try?

[Jersey_Steve]

I know you're politically incorrect and all, but I'm still going to have to make sure that you remove the portion of your post that criticizes people's faith. You're not slamming fundamentalist terrorists, you're slamming moderate practitioners of the Islamic faith, calling them backward, and that's not gonna fly.

My apoligies then.

However, I still feel there is going to be World War III and the fight card is going to be Fundie Islam v. West in a 12 round no-holds-bar drag-down knock-down fight for the world.

Sadly, with everything I've been hearing and reading, I don't think we're going to win.

[Bman120]

Seriously? Integrity and honesty make for a poor leader? New one on me. Admitting you screwed up is the ONLY way to save dignity.

Not always. You can be totally honest and have the highest integerity, but if your people aren't happy and prosperous and are suffering, then your not a good leader. If telling the truth demoralizes your people and causes problems, you cant always do that, especially in war when the stakes are high and you need people to focus on other things.

When MacArthur was pinned down in the Phillipines and asking for more troops during early WW2, what did General Marshall tell him? The truth is there is nothing we can do for you and your men? No. Instead he told him, we're sending you all we can. That wasnt a lie because he was doing that but what he could send was nowhere near enough. He did that to keep the men on the Philippines hopes up because the honest truth would have crushed them. Its a sad thing to have to do but necessary.

And I would hope to GOD no person who professes to be a leader would ever consider saying, "I have no clue how to get us out of this." If you have no clue how to get us out of this, that's a pretty big indication you should have never gotten us into it to begin with.

In the beginning no of course not. But over the course of an action, things change and sometimes in a way that leaves you in a spot where you dont know what to do. It happends to all of us at some point, but on varying scales of seriousness. What does a good leader do in a situation where no solution stands out as good? He or she goes with the best looking option, but he/she doesnt come out before hand and tell people, I dont know. You never do that.

Except on top of page six of this thread, your first post, in response to my assertion that nobody forced us to wage war, you did say exactly that...PeakDream caught it, too:


Quote:
Originally Posted by you
Quote:
Originally Posted by wordsmith
Quote:
I completely disagree that anybody "made us" go to war. Going to war under false premises was a smokescreen.


Their attacks on us forced a response. We had a choice between doing nothing and letting this continue without any effort or to try and stop it as best we could. Perhaps there were other choices, but none that gave a better option.[/b]


I looked back up and at this point, I was refering to the greater war on terror and that terrorists attacked us. I said that while quoting this "I completely disagree that anybody "made us" go to war." which you wrote in response to a post of mine on Radical Islam. So at that point we were talking about radical fundamentalism rather than the Hussain regime. In hindsight though I shouldnt have used shorthand and made sure to stress fundamentalists specifically. My bad.

Again, if you think that being lied to and people being killed because of those lies is justifiable and cool on the part of our president, and can support an administration that does these things, I'm just over here taking typing practice again, because there's really no point in attempting any kind of a discussion. I personally find being okay with, "Please, show your strong leadership qualities by lying to the people who elected you" to be terrifying and unconscionable, but clearly, you don't.



If he flat out lied and made the whole thing up, i'd agree that is unconscionable. But I dont think he did that. I think he saw intelligence of a threat, kept pushing it eventhough it was not certain because the risks of waiting to be certain were too great and used that to go to war. I used the term misled because that is a form of misleading to be sure. But he did not mislead that there was a threat, only that it needed to be acted upon immediately. We all knew Hussain was a bad man who would gladly do whatever he could to hurt us and our interests. Being confronted with that after 9/11, I think moving fast rather than slow was a smart move at that time. The problem is, they had a awful plan to do it.

Example please!

I answered your first two points in my reply to Words Peakdream so I am skipping down to this one.

One example is JFK, a president I admire btw. He misled the people and the world with his intentions on Cuba by funding operations like Operation Mongoose and other operations codenamed amworld, amtruck and an assassin codenamed amlash. All of this was done to overthrow Castro and was kept top secret. Most of it is still secret today but if you type those codenames into the declassified cable list for the CIA, you find a lot of documentation so they did exist.

Another example is FDR. The American people wanted neutrality in WW2 but he kept up lendlease and secret aid to the allies and cut off scrap metal and oil to Japan. The man wanted to get us into that war, he just needed to get a reason. After Pearl Harbor, where did the majority of our forces and equipment go? To the African/European front. It was the Japanese who attacked us and were closest to attacking the American mainland, but yet he put everything in the other front, clearly showing he was gunning to get into that fight. But nobody really cares because we won that one.

I can come up with more examples too but I guess thats a matter for another thread.

And bombing the shit out of a random country will somehow address this?


There was nothing random about Afghanistan or Iraq.

It's this administration that put us in this bad situation, what in god's name makes you think they can get us out of this?

Because they are doing things differently now. Petraeus has already proven he knows what he is doing and with him running the show, we may be able to start to make progress. Its late in the war for this but better late than never. Even the Baker Hamilton group has said to let this play out before calling it a failure. If this fails too then will probably be over but its not done yet.

Its a big gamble but the benefits far outmatch the results of us leaving so its worth a try.

I don't know, I guess I watch different news channels and read different news paper. If Sunnie killing Shiite and Shiite killing Sunnie aren't examples of extreme Islamic terrorists, then I honestly can't say what terrorism is. Perhaps only when American lives involved, then it's terrorism.


I was refering to the insurgents, not the militias. The shiite death squads roaming around need to be dismantled as well as the sunni ones. But the former bathist insurgents that were the main enemy a few years ago are the ones we can talk to.

Well our position of weakness probably isnt going to change and once again, it doesnt mean you cant try. Sure maybe negotiation will fail miserably and we will continue fighting, but it's not like we would then somehow be worse off than we are now.

Actually we'd be much worse off because they'd know they can get us to the table by violence. Then they will shift their demands to ones they can get because they feel more confidant they will get them.

I dont think it would be a policy change either. We traditionally have always said we would not negotiate with terrorists but before Iraq that basically just meant when someone was kidnapped and held for ransom we wouldnt pay it. This was supposed to deter terrorists from kidnapping since they werent going to get anything out of it. The whole organized suicide bombing thing is sort of new.


Interesting point. But if we do start talking, isnt it possible they will see their suicide bombings as successful in getting our attention?

Yes some of their demands are excessive. But that is what negotiation is for. We give a little, they give a little. Like maybe we agree to leave the middle east if they agree to tolerate non Islamic fundamentalists and not try to destabalize any more countries. They may go for that, probably not, but maybe. Couldnt we at least try?

So what would we bargain down to? Half the population will convert? We'll cut our funding to Israel by half? These arent negotiable demands. They want us out of there and they want our culture to be changed. There are no halfmeasures there. And with the desire to spread their beliefs which is a core objective, why would they agree not to destabilize other regimes?

See here's the thing dongle, the things you want them to give up or reduce are everything to them, they cant give those up without commiting what they see as blashphmey. We can negotiate because our interests and demands are flexbile, but they cant say the same. That is why the insurgents are different. They want more influence in the government and access to oil profits. Those are points for negotiaton and thus can be discussed.

[wordsmith]

If telling the truth demoralizes your people and causes problems, you cant always do that.

You (as well as people who share this viewpoint) seriously terrify me. That is all. I could say more, but it all comes down to that.

[Bman120]

You (as well as people who share this viewpoint) seriously terrify me. That is all. I could say more, but it all comes down to that

What terrifies you more, me, or the fact that just maybe i'm right?

Take a look at our system of government. Its a republic. The people choose representatives to make decisions on their behalf. Now because of their position and due to the lack of interest on the part of the majority of people, these representatives know far more about events than the people at large.

As part of their position, some representatives also have access to classified information that can't go to the people because it could go from there to the enemy through word of mouth and so on. Now with these types of information at their disposal, the events of the world can seem quite different to them than it would seem to the people.

However, when things need to be done, these representatives are accountable to the people. But the problem is there are cases where the people dont know enough to properly judge what the representatives are doing. The same thing also goes for the representatives. Some, like the president and some committees in congress are briefed on information that others are not and thus know more than others.

So you have people being judged by people who dont know enough about the situation to properly evaluate the situation in a timely manner. Now when it comes to serious matters like war and self defense, a long debate is the last thing needed. Its that deadlock that made democratic governments like the Weimar republic in Germany as well as most of the democracies in the belt of them that formed in Europe between the world wars, fail. Nothing could get done because of the constant debate.

So the question is, how do you get passed this? The answer is that you sometimes need to do things to get the people to move faster in agreeing with you. I'm not saying I like this but this is the situation. Why else would politicians lie so much? Does America have a fetish for electing liars to government? No, the people elected come to see that it is sometimes a necessary evil to get things done and that is why they do it.

[dacrunkest]

Please don't take this track. Someone else already took it in post WWI Italy. His name was Mussolini, and he inspired many other hated thugish dictators including a certain Mr. H. of whom we will not speak. Basically, his notion that 'getting people to agree' in the interest of nationalism through such techniques as silencing of the press, stifling of dissenters and government by propaganda was an embarrasing failure for the entire world. On top of that it proved inhumane and immoral.

It is a slippery slope you travel on, my friend...

[Bman120]

Please don't take this track. Someone else already took it in post WWI Italy. His name was Mussolini, and he inspired many other hated thugish dictators including a certain Mr. H. of whom we will not speak. Basically, his notion that 'getting people to agree' in the interest of nationalism through such techniques as silencing of the press, stifling of dissenters and government by propaganda was an embarrasing failure for the entire world. On top of that it proved inhumane and immoral.

It is a slippery slope you travel on, my friend...


It is a slippery slope, but our politicians have been doing this for decades and likely longer than that. We havent had a dictator yet. Mostly because there is no silencing of the press or stifling of descent.

What happends here is that nobody is supposed to find out and when they do, all hell breaks loose.

Had JFK's cuban operations been blown wide open in 1963, who knows what would have happened. As secretive as the Bush administration has been, in the height of the cold war, the government was far more secretive. Back in the 60's, American citizens were wiretapped by the FBI constantly including MLK in the early 60's and up. If America didnt collapse in the 50's and 60's when the government secrecy was at its highest, it wont do so now.

[dacrunkest]

Then the question becomes, do you look upon that time of our nation with pride? When we were harrassing, taping, and trying to entrap a man because he furthered the notion of civil rights, was that something to be lauded?

We are supposed to be a nation that is above that...and if we have gotten to that point yet, as you contend, than it is something we seriously need to strive for. And as such transparency, responsibility, and honesty are the attributes we should look to bolster in our government in the future. We should not, however, be excusing actions (such as lying to congress, lying to the people, waging wars with secret agendas behind closed doors) that hinder us from a just and moral system of government.

[Bman120]

Then the question becomes, do you look upon that time of our nation with pride? When we were harrassing, taping, and trying to entrap a man because he furthered the notion of civil rights, was that something to be lauded?

We are supposed to be a nation that is above that...and if we have gotten to that point yet, as you contend, than it is something we seriously need to strive for. And as such transparency, responsibility, and honesty are the attributes we should look to bolster in our government in the future. We should not, however, be excusing actions (such as lying to congress, lying to the people, waging wars with secret agendas behind closed doors) that hinder us from a just and moral system of government.

No I don't look on what happened in the 60's with pride at all. I dont like lying by the government at all. However, I do understand why it has happened now and then. And I don't think it is as dangerous as you all think it is.

I agree that this is a dangerous path and I dont think the government needs to lie and cover up what it does, but my explaination in my reply to Words is what I see them doing and while I dont think it is always needed, I see why they do it sometimes and I don't think its the end of the world.

[wordsmith]

or the fact that just maybe i'm right?

Nope, pretty sure it's not that.

[Syracuse]

No I don't look on what happened in the 60's with pride at all. I dont like lying by the government at all. However, I do understand why it has happened now and then. And I don't think it is as dangerous as you all think it is.

I agree that this is a dangerous path and I dont think the government needs to lie and cover up what it does, but my explaination in my reply to Words is what I see them doing and while I dont think it is always needed, I see why they do it sometimes and I don't think its the end of the world.
It's not the end of the world type dangerous but we as humans, not just Americans, should strive for better than that, and not except it just because "it happened in the past and wasn't so bad". If things kept going on like they were during Mcarthyism it would have been the downfall of this country, make no mistake. Luckily a few brave men and women stemmed that tide. But now we see it creeping back up again, and people such as yourself are allowing it.

[dongle]

I agree I dont think negotiation is going to stop all the violence. I just think it's worth a try. Maybe we can make some of them happy and shrink the number or remaining terrorists. But you're right, it might be a waste of time, it might validate their tactics as an effective way of getting attention and hurting america. But I think they know that anyway even if we dont try to negotiate. Iraq is in the news everyday, terrorists probably get CNN, they know the american public are watching and they arent happy with the death toll.

I've never been sure what exactly was the motivating force behind terrorism. I know a lot of them are fanatically religous but do they really plan on continuing to blow themselves up forever until the entire planet converts to their way of thinking? And if that is true, how do we stop that? I dont think we can. I'm glad I'm not the president or running for president because this situation is not simple and may not have any right answer. Religion is very hard to fight or negotiate with.

I just hope this country doesnt turn in to the England in V for Vendetta. I can see us heading that way... Or worse, the America from V for Vendetta

[redav]

I've never been sure what exactly was the motivating force behind terrorism. I know a lot of them are fanatically religous but do they really plan on continuing to blow themselves up forever until the entire planet converts to their way of thinking? And if that is true, how do we stop that? I dont think we can. I'm glad I'm not the president or running for president because this situation is not simple and may not have any right answer. Religion is very hard to fight or negotiate with.
They (the leaders) want everyone to think like them, or in other words, power. Honestly, this is the goal of our political parties as well, they just don't have their minions blow themselves up to accomplish it.

How to combat it? Education. An entire generation (or more) of children need to be taught good principles and not extremist, hateful dogma. They need to see good deeds in action. It is like the only way to have a crime-free society is to have a populous that doesn't want to commit crime.

[PeakDream]

They (the leaders) want everyone to think like them, or in other words, power. Honestly, this is the goal of our political parties as well, they just don't have their minions blow themselves up to accomplish it.

How to combat it? Education. An entire generation (or more) of children need to be taught good principles and not extremist, hateful dogma. They need to see good deeds in action. It is like the only way to have a crime-free society is to have a populous that doesn't want to commit crime.

Sorry, I can't fully agree more with this statement. If you look at the general terrorist organization groups, they are educated, doctors, lawyers, engineers. Education doesn't address the issue of religious extremism because education alone doesn't equal fairness. In order to minimize terrorism, we must create a society where people have a fair form of exercising their voices, concern and grievances. A perfect example is the Hamas and Hezbollah, the so-called governments for both are corrupted, useless. While Hamas and Hezbollah protect and serve the people, regardless of their bad intentions. It's hard to hate someone if they bring food to your house, education for your kids, and medicine for your ills.

The three basic components for a functional society needs to be:
1. Functioning economy that create jobs and wealth
2. Functioning judicial system that create law and order
3. Functioning social system (government) that can protect and serve

We have to be very careful making generalization about terrorism. The Islamic radical terrorism (Al-Queda) or the Christian radical terrorism (KKK) is very different that Basque Fatherland and Freedom of Spain (ETA).

A government that can protect and serve the majority can maintain power, even raise a thriving society, perfect example is China. It has a weak judicial system, human right violations all over but a strong education system. I don't think China is turning to democracy or terrorism anytime soon.

I do agree with redav that in order to build that society, education is a must.

[redav]

Your points are excellent. I do want to clarify that the education I was referring to was that of a 'civilized' nature, meaning killing/hating people doesn't solve things, it's okay to disagree, sometimes you have to accept that you don't get your way, etc. Those principles are sorely lacking in many people.

[dongle]

I've heard that the terrorist religious mentality today in the middle east is similar to what europe went through during the middle ages (800 - 1400 AD ish). Big difference of course is the level of technology, which is scary, can you imagine if the knights of the crusades had nuclear weapons?

I agree they need to be educated and brought up to the level of thinking of the rest of the world. But a lot of them are educated and do come from fairly civilized countries like Saudi Arabia. Wasnt Osama Bin Laden like a wealthy prince in Saudi Arabia before he gave it up for terrorism? Now I wouldnt plan my honeymoon there or anything but doesnt Saudi Arabia have a reasonably strong economy and stable government?

[Bman120]

I agree I dont think negotiation is going to stop all the violence. I just think it's worth a try. Maybe we can make some of them happy and shrink the number or remaining terrorists. But you're right, it might be a waste of time, it might validate their tactics as an effective way of getting attention and hurting america. But I think they know that anyway even if we dont try to negotiate.

Its possible. There may be some that we can speak to out there. But they couldnt be open negotiations for all to see. I think the best way to get them to succeed would be to have them through either backchannels or top secret meetings. These people do have a pragmatic side and that would certainly motivate some groups to speak to us.

It could be a dangerous slippery slope and that is why I am skeptical at first glance but after thinking it over, things in the middle east are bad anyhow so I guess it could be worth a shot if it was done with the right people and the right circumstances.

Iraq is in the news everyday, terrorists probably get CNN, they know the american public are watching and they arent happy with the death toll.


Someday I really hope someone does a study of the effect of television and modern media on warfare because I think they would find a major effect on every level of warfare. Now its not just about winning battles, but winning perception. An example is the tet offensive in Vietnam. A massive defeat for the NVA and the Vietcong, especially the VC who could barely recover. But the perception was a massive win for the North Vietnamese and they used perception as a tool to drive us out.

And I think the same thing is happening here. The insurgents keep fighting and showing America images of death in the hopes that we will see the fighting over and over on tv and get impatient. Does this make the media anti-American or traitors? Absolutely not, they are doing their jobs, but i'd love to see a scientific study of just what that job is doing to warfare.

I just hope this country doesnt turn in to the England in V for Vendetta. I can see us heading that way... Or worse, the America from V for Vendetta

I dont know which would be worse, being run by Adam Suttler and Cready or being in an America ravaged by civil war and plagues. I don't see that happening here unless terrorists try to do to us what they've done in Israel ie bombing our cities constantly over and over again so nobody feels safe. That is where the tipping point for the public on democracy may come. Where they may be willing to give some of it up for security. I hope they dont because giving that up will be a far greater loss than anything the terrorists can inflict.

Nope, pretty sure it's not that.

Its obvious we've got a stalemate here Words so I guess we'll need to agree to disagree. What i'd like to know though is what do you think we should do to take responsability for our mistakes over there? You dont agree with me that we need to stay and try to make it better ourselves so what do you propose?

Also, why do you think politicians lie as they do if not the reason I gave?

[wordsmith]

Its obvious we've got a stalemate here Words so I guess we'll need to agree to disagree. What i'd like to know though is what do you think we should do to take responsability for our mistakes over there? You dont agree with me that we need to stay and try to make it better ourselves so what do you propose?

Also, why do you think politicians lie as they do if not the reason I gave?

I could have told you it was a stalemate pages ago. :p

What do I personally think our govt. should do to take responsibility for its mistakes?

1. Admit to them.
2. Continue to have our military transitioning forces prepare for exactly that, transitioning to the point where the Iraqi security forces are prepared to take over their own policing, setting and sticking to a solid date for withdrawal. Staying indefinitely is not making a transition. I think that's all we CAN do at this point to help the people of Iraq help themselves. Anything else we are doing there is not helping them. Us occupying the region indefinitely serves no positive purpose, in my opinion.

And why do politicians lie? Because they can, if all people hold your philosophy, which is that citizens shouldn't question it.

[dacrunkest]

Or, they could fly the president aboard an aircraft carrier again and scream MISSION ACCOMPLISHED! even harder...maybe that will make us be the winner again.

I spoke with my brother about this (and he is a bit of a hawk), he says the reason to stay and fight is because if we don't we won't be looked upon as the best nation in the world anymore. My answer is, so what? We can be a truly great nation by focusing on the right things. Do really good nations like Canada, Switzerland, Norway, Sweden, Japan, Spain, Italy, ect. care so much that they are not "the best"? And does "the best" translate to military might (a rather old school notion, if you ask me)? And can we be "the best" in other ways by fixing our educational system, taking care of our indigent, providing health care to those who need it, and solving world problems through innovation, engineering, etc...

Our educational system is falling behind other countries'...how come everybody isn't screaming that we need to make that "the best"...

[wordsmith]

We already don't look like the best nation in the world, both for being there in the first place, and because we're headed by a frightening, dishonest individual with a severe integrity deficiency.

[Bman120]

1. Admit to them.

I think we did this to the extent that a nation can in world affairs.

Continue to have our military transitioning forces prepare for exactly that, transitioning to the point where the Iraqi security forces are prepared to take over their own policing, setting and sticking to a solid date for withdrawal. Staying indefinitely is not making a transition. I think that's all we CAN do at this point to help the people of Iraq help themselves.

This is where it gets ambigious to me. Staying forever isnt an option but at the same time, setting artificial time tables that can come and go without being achieved are no good either because they are demoralizing to the troops and a victory for insurgents. So somehow we need to do something that doesnt involve setting benchmarks that give terrorists freebie victories but that show the Iraqis that we wont be there forever to help.

And why do politicians lie? Because they can, if all people hold your philosophy, which is that citizens shouldn't question it.

But we elect a lot of politicians... and most if not all have lied about something pertaining to their jobs at some point. And you cant tell me they all do it because they can. I think its more about the job rather than the man. But this is really a grey area for people who arent in politics because we really dont know enough to say for sure.

Also, I didnt say we shouldnt question politicians to see if they are truthful. If they are exposed and its proven absolutely that he/she lied, then that person needs to be held accountable ala Nixon. I just think we need to understand the nature of the circumstances is all. Look at the big picture so to speak.

I spoke with my brother about this (and he is a bit of a hawk), he says the reason to stay and fight is because if we don't we won't be looked upon as the best nation in the world anymore.

We are the most powerful nation this planet has ever seen. Whatever happends in Iraq wont change that.

Do really good nations like Canada, Switzerland, Norway, Sweden, Japan, Spain, Italy, ect. care so much that they are not "the best"?

They most certainly do. You can see it in how theyve acted since WW2 to today.

And does "the best" translate to military might (a rather old school notion, if you ask me)? And can we be "the best" in other ways by fixing our educational system, taking care of our indigent, providing health care to those who need it, and solving world problems through innovation, engineering, etc...


Its not just military might, its a combination of many things. As for solving world problems through innovation, we've done that and continue to do so. Its not that we're doing this less, its that the world is doing it more now. Especially in Asia. A rising world does not equal a weakening United States.

As for taking care of the indigent, I think we need to do more for the poor but we cant go giving them things. We need to cultivate an environment where they can help themselves. We need to open more factories in rundown neighborhoods, we need to lower the costs of higher education itself rather than just provide grants and scholarships and we need to provide more order and discipline in our schools at all levels.

As for healthcare, universal free healthcare is impossible. What we need is to help lower the costs of these drugs and reinforce hospitals, especially the outpatient care which has been overwhelmed by illegal immigrants and others to the point where it barely functions in many cities.

[PeakDream]

Slutty campus TA, episode II on Spice!!!! Wait, damn it, it's episode I, saw that already.

I think we did this to the extent that a nation can in world affairs.
Errr, what? I missed that part of the news.

This is where it gets ambigious to me. Staying forever isnt an option but at the same time, setting artificial time tables that can come and go without being achieved are no good either because they are demoralizing to the troops and a victory for insurgents. So somehow we need to do something that doesnt involve setting benchmarks that give terrorists freebie victories but that show the Iraqis that we wont be there forever to help.
Errr, what? Please tell me this isn't the twilight zone. So, you are saying we need to win, but in order for us to declare victory, we must be able to say it's all good now. In order for us to say all is good, we need to make sure certain criteria are met. In order for us to met those criteria, we need to make benchmarks. In order for us to make benchmarks, the terrorist win!!! There is a phrase that sums up this war perfectly. "We lose even if we win!"

But we elect a lot of politicians... and most if not all have lied about something pertaining to their jobs at some point. And you cant tell me they all do it because they can. I think its more about the job rather than the man. But this is really a grey area for people who arent in politics because we really dont know enough to say for sure.
Wow, I didn't realize I was one among a citizenry of mass retardation. The only reason this country is strong because of its citizens, if that's how you feel about the populace in general. God save the queen.

Also, I didnt say we shouldnt question politicians to see if they are truthful. If they are exposed and its proven absolutely that he/she lied, then that person needs to be held accountable ala Nixon. I just think we need to understand the nature of the circumstances is all. Look at the big picture so to speak.
Nixon resigned because his staffs committed a crime!! There is a huge difference between lying about something, and committing a crime. Lying isn't in the penal code. Lying under oath on the other hand is, I bet Libby and Cheney is shitting bricks tonight. If they aren't, then we are fucked, because our leaders have no redeeming value left. Perhaps we should send them to Iraq.

We are the most powerful nation this planet has ever seen. Whatever happends in Iraq wont change that.
Famous last word, I bet the Romans, Greeks, Brits, Spaniards were saying the same thing back in the days when they were busy conquering the world, until one day, BOOM, their asses were on fire from the ass kicking by others. Guess what, empires come and go. History has taught us, it's very easy for an empire to go, than to come.

A rising world does not equal a weakening United States.
Yes, it does. The basic equation in world power is balance. China can counterbalance US influence in Asia. South America is becoming socialist-society. Iran and Syria are flexing their muscles in Middle East. World balance is a good thing for the world, it gives other countries responsibility rather than relying solely on American might. The question is, is US willing to share. I see no evidence of that from this administration.

As for taking care of the indigent, I think we need to do more for the poor but we cant go giving them things. We need to cultivate an environment where they can help themselves. We need to open more factories in rundown neighborhoods, we need to lower the costs of higher education itself rather than just provide grants and scholarships and we need to provide more order and discipline in our schools at all levels.
In a capitalist society, where profit trumps all else, this will never happen. This has been tried a million times, results are the same.

As for healthcare, universal free healthcare is impossible. What we need is to help lower the costs of these drugs and reinforce hospitals, especially the outpatient care which has been overwhelmed by illegal immigrants and others to the point where it barely functions in many cities.
We don't have health care in America, we have sick care. I don't like illegals as much as those stupid minutemen people. But I'm smart enough to know I can't blame the lack of health care on them.

[dacrunkest]

I don't like illegals as much as those stupid minutemen people. But I'm smart enough to know I can't blame the lack of health care on them.

:mad: :frustrate cringe...can you please use a less-offensive term when making your viewpoints.

[Bman120]

Errr, what? I missed that part of the news.

He's admitted some of the mistakes he has made over there now and then. I dont think any politician has come out and laid all his faults out for all to see, leaders dont do that.

Errr, what? Please tell me this isn't the twilight zone. So, you are saying we need to win, but in order for us to declare victory, we must be able to say it's all good now. In order for us to say all is good, we need to make sure certain criteria are met. In order for us to met those criteria, we need to make benchmarks. In order for us to make benchmarks, the terrorist win!!!

Not quite. We have to do something in the middle ie quiet benchmarks. We have some benchmarks on file here at the pentagon and if the Iraqis dont make them because they arent willing to do what it takes, thats when we start to draw down. If they dont make them for legit reasons then thats different.

But an unending commitment and public benchmarks wont work.

Wow, I didn't realize I was one among a citizenry of mass retardation. The only reason this country is strong because of its citizens, if that's how you feel about the populace in general. God save the queen.


As I said before, the populace doesnt get all the information the representatives they elect do. That doesnt make the populace dumb, just uninformed and that is something that cant change because classified info cant go to the enemy which it would if made public.

I bet Libby and Cheney is shitting bricks tonight. If they aren't, then we are fucked, because our leaders have no redeeming value left. Perhaps we should send them to Iraq.


That whole thing is a nonevent. Libby is on trial on a trumped up purgery charge.

Famous last word, I bet the Romans, Greeks, Brits, Spaniards were saying the same thing back in the days when they were busy conquering the world, until one day, BOOM, their asses were on fire from the ass kicking by others. Guess what, empires come and go. History has taught us, it's very easy for an empire to go, than to come.


Oh our time will come for sure. How and when is anyone's guess but one war in a small country like Iraq wont do it alone. It would take something massive to knock us off the top. An EMP blast or something like that.

World balance is a good thing for the world

The main mission of any govt is to look out for its people first and foremost. That means we dont look out for whats best for the world, we look out for what is best for us. And if countering rising powers is what is needed, then that is what we must do.

In a capitalist society, where profit trumps all else, this will never happen. This has been tried a million times, results are the same

Purely capitalist societies maybe. But we arent purely capitalist just like we arent a pure democracy.

I don't like as much as those stupid minutemen people. But I'm smart enough to know I can't blame the lack of health care on them.

Don't get me wrong that wasn't my intention. I was just using that as an example of one area of healthcare that needed to be fixed. There are many more areas having nothing to do with illegal immigration that need work.

[wordsmith]

You guys evidently missed the part where use of the term "illegals" is not cool. Please delete so a mod doesn't have to.

[Xander]

Or, they could fly the president aboard an aircraft carrier again and scream MISSION ACCOMPLISHED! even harder...maybe that will make us be the winner again.
Hahahaha... :D

And are people using the term "illegals" as derogatory now? When did that happen? I've never heard it used before... weird.

[Bman120]

You guys evidently missed the part where use of the term "illegals" is not cool. Please delete so a mod doesn't have to.

I deleted it from the quote in my response. I didnt realize that word wasnt allowed here, my bad.

Can we still use the phrase, illegal immigration? If not i'll wipe that out too.

[wordsmith]

A quick search will show on a multitude of prevous threads why the term, when used to refer to indivuals, versus a process, is offensive and not allowed.

[Bman120]

A quick search will show on a multitude of prevous threads why the term, when used to refer to indivuals, versus a process, is offensive and not allowed.

That's fine I don't need to search, i'll take your word for it. :)

Seeing as I had no reason to assume I needed to search for it before, that's why I didn't know.

Going back to my original question, is the phrase illegal immigration not allowed here either? Or it just the one word? Not trying to be rude or anything I just want to know so I can avoid saying something you guys dont want on here.

[PeakDream]

I will stop commenting on this thread at this point forward. It's been fun going in circles. If the word isn't allowed, what other words that can be used, "undocumented"?

[wordsmith]

That's fine I don't need to search, i'll take your word for it. :)

Seeing as I had no reason to assume I needed to search for it before, that's why I didn't know.

Going back to my original question, is the phrase illegal immigration not allowed here either? Or it just the one word? Not trying to be rude or anything I just want to know so I can avoid saying something you guys dont want on here.

The reason it's offensive to refer to people as "illegals" is because it dehumanizes them. People aren't illegal, although their actions may be. A person can be an immigrant, here legally or illegally, but a person cannot be "an illegal." Immigration is an action, it can be legal or not legal. Just don't refer to people as "illegals," and you're in the clear.