US 2008 Presidential Campaign/Debate Discussion Thread - Part III

[Moonlit_Angel]

I'll third that. I'm on my toes about those two, look forward to seeing how it all turns out for them.

Angela

 

[Strongbow]

i won't touch the "surge" -- since an already ethnically cleansed and now nearly all walled in Baghdad is bound to have fewer casualties, especially when the books are totally cooked and it's nothing more than a pretense to provide an exit strategy and there's been *no* political progress to speak of --

i had just heard on Hardball that Obama and HRC were now in a virtual tie in New Hampshire. and he's pulled ahead in SS. this is the race to watch, and in many ways it's inspiring -- a woman versus an African-American.

Walls went up in Baghdad back in 2006, but Iraqi casualties according to multiple independent sources did not start to fall until substantial numbers of US surge troops began to arrive in the city in the spring, so the impact is without any doubt do to progress made by the US military. Despite the sectarian violence in Baghdad, it is not anywhere near as ethnically cleansed as Sarajevo and much of the rest of Bosnia as early as 1993. While such a large degree of ethnic cleansing suggest that violence should be reduced, in Bosnia, it continued without any let up until military intervention.

Not only has the US military succeeded in bringing down civilian casualties in Iraq, but it has also had great success, finally, at winning over Sunni tribes and communities that had at one time supported the insurgency. All of these area's, improving political situation at the local level, the improving security situation, and some signs of economic progress, have all contributed to huge reduction in US casualties which for the month of November were the lowest they had been since February 2004, nearly four years ago, in terms of both killed and wounded. US casualties for October and November 2007 are the lowest two month total for US casualties since the summer of 2003.

While Democrats are all hot and bothered about the latest NIE on Iran, they should remember what the last NIE on Iraq said about withdrawing from Iraq by March 2008 as many Democrats want, or some vague idea of some type of redeployment. Here are the final two paragraphs of the last NIE on Iraq from August 2007 that address those points specifically:

We assess that changing the mission of Coalition forces from a primarily counterinsurgency and stabilization role to a primary combat support role for Iraqi forces and counterterrorist operations to prevent AQI from establishing a safehaven would erode security gains achieved thus far. The impact of a change in mission on Iraq's political and security environment and thourghout the region probably would vary in intensity and suddenness of onset in relation to the rate and scale of a Coalition redeployment. Developments within the Iraqi communities themselves will be decisive in determining political and security trajectories.

Recent security improvements in Iraq, including success against AQI, have depended significantly on the close synchronization of conventional counterinsurgency and counterterrorism operations. A change of mission that interrupts that synchronization would place security improvements at risk.

No book cooking there as that is the latest Estimate of 16 intelligence agencies in regards to Iraq, and the results since August only provide more support for that estimate. Even the ultra anti-war website Iraqbodycount has noted the decrease in civilian casualties during 2007.

There has been political progress at the local level. There are currently though no plans for any sort of a withdrawal, and the reduction in troops in early 2008 simply reflects the end point of the surge which will not be complete until August 2008. Even then, there will still be slightly more US troops on the ground in Iraq in August 2008 than in January 2007, just prior to the start of the surge. No real withdrawal, below pre-surge levels, will happen until conditions on the ground warrent it. That will be the case at least until the next administration takes office and the next administration, even if its a Democratic one, is unlikely to advocate a pre-mature withdrawal because they certainly do not want to be the ones to drop the ball on Iraq given the risk and consequences of doing so.

If there is going to be a Democrat in the White House in January 2009, hopefully it will be Clinton as there is likely to be more continuity between the Bush administration and a Hillary Clinton administration on Iraq policy specifically as well as other foreign policy issues, than with any of the other Democratic candidates.

 

[phillyfan26]

If we leave in 2009, civil war will break out.

If we leave in 2013, civil war will break out.

Frankly, the four extra years of deaths of our soldiers just to delay the inevitable is a tough argument to make.

 

[Strongbow]

If we leave in 2009, civil war will break out.

If we leave in 2013, civil war will break out.

Frankly, the four extra years of deaths of our soldiers just to delay the inevitable is a tough argument to make.

Civil War won't break out provided the United States continues the current counterinsurgency, counter terrorist, and nation building operations. Eventually, political, military and economic progress will happen to a degree which will allow coalition forces to leave or greatly reduce their presence without there being any resumption of heavy violence. The goal of the 52,000 NATO force in Afghanistan is the same for that country which has just as many if not more ethnic fault lines than Iraq. A pre-mature withdrawal from Iraq is simply too risky, given the potential consequences for Iraq, the region, and the United States.

 

[Infinity]

Civil War won't break out provided the United States continues the current counterinsurgency, counter terrorist, and nation building operations. Eventually, political, military and economic progress will happen to a degree which will allow coalition forces to leave or greatly reduce their presence without there being any resumption of heavy violence. The goal of the 52,000 NATO force in Afghanistan is the same for that country which has just as many if not more ethnic fault lines than Iraq. A pre-mature withdrawal from Iraq is simply too risky, given the potential consequences for Iraq, the region, and the United States.

It is NOT the job of the American taxpayer or the American soldier to play referee in between two groups of people who hate each other and are willing to suicide bomb each other. It is not our problem.

Secondly, whether we leave or not people are going to hate us for starting the whole war. So it is bullshit to say that if we leave it is too risky for us. BULLSHIT. Our soldiers are dying over there every fuckin day. It is a risk if we stay there.

I'm a traditional Republican, I believe in lowest possible taxation and lowest possible spending. But all these neo-cons are such hypocrites. They want to trillions of dollars in this war to "protect" the lives of Americans. But they don't care about protecting the health of Americans.

Such hypocrites.

 

[Canadiens1131]

You know, I used to have a lot of respect for McCain, but in the last few years since the last election, he's just said some bonehead things on issues such as AIDS in Africa that have made me question him.

He used to seem like the sane Republican alternative, and now I'm not sure of that.

 

[Strongbow]

It is NOT the job of the American taxpayer or the American soldier to play referee in between two groups of people who hate each other and are willing to suicide bomb each other. It is not our problem.

Secondly, whether we leave or not people are going to hate us for starting the whole war. So it is bullshit to say that if we leave it is too risky for us. BULLSHIT. Our soldiers are dying over there every fuckin day. It is a risk if we stay there.

I'm a traditional Republican, I believe in lowest possible taxation and lowest possible spending. But all these neo-cons are such hypocrites. They want to trillions of dollars in this war to "protect" the lives of Americans. But they don't care about protecting the health of Americans.

Such hypocrites.

It would be a mistake to leave Iraq pre-maturely for four reasons 1. the potential for Al Quada to take advantage of the chaos it could create and finally replace the base they lost in Afghanistan from which they could launch new operations against Europe and the United States. 2. the regional instability it would create among countries that border Iraq, and the dangers of a regional war among these countries in area vital to global security because of the large oil reserves. 3. the humanitarian disaster it could create in Iraq for the people. 4. the potential for the return of another dictator out of such chaos many years later who may threaten Kuwaiti and Saudi Arabian oil reserves vital to the planets economy.

The American tax payer values security, safety, and the economic well being of the country which is tied to Persian Gulf security. That is why the American tax payer overwhelmingly supported the 1991 Gulf War, the efforts after that to disarm Saddam peacefully, as well as the military intervention to overthrow him once those efforts had obviously failed. Abandoning Iraq and the Persian Gulf region is not the way to insure a safe and prosperous United States or World.

 

[BVS]

A pre-mature withdrawal from Iraq is simply too risky, given the potential consequences for Iraq, the region, and the United States.

The fact is, that a "premature withdrawal" is undefinable. It just is. The definition of this war is very gray to begin with, so the result is even hazier. We can withdrawl tomorrow and have "peace", or we can withdrawl 3 years from now and have "peace", but it might not fix the overall problem.

 

[BVS]

the potential for the return of another dictator out of such chaos many years later who may threaten Kuwaiti and Saudi Arabian oil reserves vital to the planets economy.

How does a war guarantee this? Please tell me this, for I've been asking you for years.

 

[Strongbow]

The fact is, that a "premature withdrawal" is undefinable. It just is. The definition of this war is very gray to begin with, so the result is even hazier. We can withdrawl tomorrow and have "peace", or we can withdrawl 3 years from now and have "peace", but it might not fix the overall problem.

Not according to the August 2007 NIE on Iraq which said the following:

We assess that changing the mission of Coalition forces from a primarily counterinsurgency and stabilization role to a primary combat support role for Iraqi forces and counterterrorist operations to prevent AQI from establishing a safehaven would erode security gains achieved thus far. The impact of a change in mission on Iraq's political and security environment and thourghout the region probably would vary in intensity and suddenness of onset in relation to the rate and scale of a Coalition redeployment. Developments within the Iraqi communities themselves will be decisive in determining political and security trajectories.

Recent security improvements in Iraq, including success against AQI, have depended significantly on the close synchronization of conventional counterinsurgency and counterterrorism operations. A change of mission that interrupts that synchronization would place security improvements at risk.

The fact that the leading Democratic candidates recently would NOT promise to have all US troops out of Iraq by 2013 shows that they might be gradually coming around to Bush's and McCains idea's for future US policy on Iraq.

Leaving before Iraq has a military that can provide for its own internal and external security, an economy that is moving forward, and a political situation that has reached a point of stability that will not evaporate as or once the United States leave, is the definition of a pre-mature withdrawal. Such a withdrawal only serves the interest of Al Quada and those wanting to harm Iraq and the region.

 

[Strongbow]

How does a war guarantee this? Please tell me this, for I've been asking you for years.

Well, any sufficiently strong entity within Iraq is in close proximity to oil reserves that are the planets economic life line in Saudi Arabia. There is no guarantee that such an entity will emerge from the chaos that will follow a pre-mature withdrawal by the United States, but it does create a significant possibility to be concerned about when looking 10 years down the road. Far better to stabilize Iraq now, then to have to return years later to fight another war under potentially worse circumstances.

 

[martha]

Far better to stabilize Iraq now, then to have to return years later to fight another war under potentially worse circumstances.

Since the war we started destabilized it in the first place.

 

[BVS]

Of course, but you are clouding issues.

There is a difference between supporting this war and realizing what we have to do now.

But once again, you missed my point.

The definition of "premature withdrawal" is up in the air. Your definition of a ready army is different from many.

And don't even get me started, the Republicans have served the interest of Al Quada for years, their numbers are quite fine due to Bush...

 

[Strongbow]

Since the war we started destabilized it in the first place.

Since the necessary war to remove Saddam meant that Iraq would need to be rebuilt after 24 years of Saddam's rule, just as the United States is doing in Bosnia, Kosovo, and Afghanistan.

 

[BVS]

Well, any sufficiently strong entity within Iraq is in close proximity to oil reserves that are the planets economic life line in Saudi Arabia. There is no guarantee that such an entity will emerge from the chaos that will follow a pre-mature withdrawal by the United States, but it does create a significant possibility to be concerned about when looking 10 years down the road. Far better to stabilize Iraq now, then to have to return years later to fight another war under potentially worse circumstances.

I'm glad you admit it's about oil.

But once again you don't answer my question. Try just answering my question and not dealing with the "pre mature withdrawal". Just tell me how your scenario guanatees us something.

 

[martha]

Since the necessary war to remove Saddam

A man who was our pal when I was in high school.

 

[Strongbow]

Of course, but you are clouding issues.

There is a difference between supporting this war and realizing what we have to do now.

But once again, you missed my point.

The definition of "premature withdrawal" is up in the air. Your definition of a ready army is different from many.

And don't even get me started, the Republicans have served the interest of Al Quada for years, their numbers are quite fine due to Bush...

Well, I agree that whether or not you supported the removal of Saddam is not very relevant to what needs to be done now which is what the next President will be looking at on January 20, 2009.

As far as what constitutes a pre-mature withdrawal, I think everyone can agree that it means leaving Iraq before it has the means to survive on its own as a relatively stable country. The same goes for Afghanistan, Bosnia, and Kosovo.

Al Quada would have a new base inside of Iraq in 2008 if the administration had followed most Democrats plans to withdraw all US combat troops by March 31, 2008. The surge has crushed Al Quada's area of greatest activity in Iraq and Al Quada attacks are almost non-existent in Afghanistan unless you include the local Taliban fighters with Al Quada. Most importantly, the United States has been free of any Al Quada attacks in the USA since 9/11. The administration has done a great job at combating Al Quada given the necessary invasion of Iraq and the restrictions on military operations in Pakistan.

 

[Strongbow]

A man who was our pal when I was in high school.

The Soviets Unions pal actually, but a leader we did not want to see the Iranian revolution overrun, given the weakness of the persian gulf countries just to the south of Iraq. A different time, and far different circumstances and a situation that the United States had only limited involvement in compared to the Soviet Union, China, France, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and other Sunni Arab states. Certainly nothing like the relationship the United States had with Joseph Stalin during World War II.

 

[Strongbow]

I'm glad you admit it's about oil.

But once again you don't answer my question. Try just answering my question and not dealing with the "pre mature withdrawal". Just tell me how your scenario guanatees us something.

Which scenario and what guarantee?

 

[BVS]

Which scenario and what guarantee?

Well what do you suggest we need, and how will it GUARANTEE anything?

 

[BVS]

As far as what constitutes a pre-mature withdrawal, I think everyone can agree that it means leaving Iraq before it has the means to survive on its own as a relatively stable country. The same goes for Afghanistan, Bosnia, and Kosovo.

So how is that defined? It's changed defintions with this administration.

Al Quada would have a new base inside of Iraq in 2008 if the administration had followed most Democrats plans to withdraw all US combat troops by March 31, 2008. The surge has crushed Al Quada's area of greatest activity in Iraq and Al Quada attacks are almost non-existent in Afghanistan unless you include the local Taliban fighters with Al Quada. Most importantly, the United States has been free of any Al Quada attacks in the USA since 9/11. The administration has done a great job at combating Al Quada given the necessary invasion of Iraq and the restrictions on military operations in Pakistan.

And what about all the other recruits? Do you think they will all be disticnt by the time we leave? You think they are ALL in Iraq?

 

[Strongbow]

Well what do you suggest we need, and how will it GUARANTEE anything?

Need for what? You need to explain in a little more detail about what your talking about.

 

[Infinity]

It would be a mistake to leave Iraq pre-maturely for four reasons 1. the potential for Al Quada to take advantage of the chaos it could create and finally replace the base they lost in Afghanistan from which they could launch new operations against Europe and the United States. 2. the regional instability it would create among countries that border Iraq, and the dangers of a regional war among these countries in area vital to global security because of the large oil reserves. 3. the humanitarian disaster it could create in Iraq for the people. 4. the potential for the return of another dictator out of such chaos many years later who may threaten Kuwaiti and Saudi Arabian oil reserves vital to the planets economy.

The American tax payer values security, safety, and the economic well being of the country which is tied to Persian Gulf security. That is why the American tax payer overwhelmingly supported the 1991 Gulf War, the efforts after that to disarm Saddam peacefully, as well as the military intervention to overthrow him once those efforts had obviously failed. Abandoning Iraq and the Persian Gulf region is not the way to insure a safe and prosperous United States or World.

Okay. Here are my responses to your 4 reasons:

1) There is al-Qaeda in every country of the world, including the U.S. DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND THAT? Us being in Iraq is not going to stop al-Qaeda in Germany, Indonesia, Pakistan, or Lebanon from planning an attack on the U.S. So the ONLY way to prevent an attack on the U.S. is through stronger security measures within our country.

2, 3) It is NOT our job to spend trillions of dollars, have our soldiers killed every single day for years and years and play referee in a region where the people have been fighting for thousands and thousands of years. Our presence will not make the Shiites and Sunnis get along.

4) If Kuwait and Saudi Arabia want to protect their oil reserves, they can. Iraq currently does not have a military, let alone weapons or WMDs. So your reason that we need to "protect" Kuwait and Saudi Arabia's oil reserves is just typical neo-con bullshit. IRAQ IS NOT A THREAT TO ANYONE.

And finally, the American taxpayer backed the efforts to overthrow Saddam Hussein because they were mislead by their government into thinking that Iraq had WMD's and connections with 9/11 and Osama bin Laden, not for any other reason you've gave.

Everything you said is wrong.

 

[BVS]

Need for what? You need to explain in a little more detail about what your talking about.

I love how you now play the questioner. We've been asking you this for years, and you always had absolutes.

I'm glad you've grown out of absulutes. It's a good start.

 

[Strongbow]

So how is that defined? It's changed defintions with this administration.



And what about all the other recruits? Do you think they will all be disticnt by the time we leave? You think they are ALL in Iraq?

It involves having a military and police force that can operate independently of the coalition and contain any sort of internal violence. The current military and police force in Iraq although much improved is at least 3 to 4 years away from being able to do that, if not more. I could go into more detail about where the Iraqi military and police force is at the moment and where they need to be, if that is what your asking.

Politically, there needs to be local elections and disbanding of regional militias and the incorporation of some their members into the security forces, but not in a way that could create sectarian problems. At the national level the Shia party's must get over their insecurity about giving the Sunni's several of the things they want, and the Sunni's have to realize that the days of Saddam are over and that as a minority, they will be stronger if they can forge alliances with like minded Kurds and Shia groups.

As Iraq gets on its feet, politically as well as from the security standpoint, the economic capacity of the country should start to rise significantly. Unlike Afghanistan, Bosnia, and Kosovo, Iraq has great potential for huge increases in wealth because of the country's natural oil and water resources.

What precisely will be the tipping point where the United States and Iraq will fill comfortable withdrawing all foreign troops from Iraq no one knows, but it will involve a combination of the above factors. US troops are still in Bosnia today after deploying there 12 years ago. US troops are still in Kosovo after deploying there 8 years ago. But the number of troops is far less than it was in 1996 for Bosnia or 1999 for Kosovo.

Gradually over time as the situation becomes more stable, more troops will be withdrawn. The British Army deployed to Northern Ireland at the end of the 1960s, and just recently completely withdrew from Northern Ireland in 2007, nearly 40 years after they first went in.

 

[Strongbow]

I love how you now play the questioner. We've been asking you this for years, and you always had absolutes.

I'm glad you've grown out of absulutes. It's a good start.

Thats great, but I have no idea what your talking about, and I'm beginning to wonder if you do yourself.

 

[Strongbow]

Okay. Here are my responses to your 4 reasons:

1) There is al-Qaeda in every country of the world, including the U.S. DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND THAT? Us being in Iraq is not going to stop al-Qaeda in Germany, Indonesia, Pakistan, or Lebanon from planning an attack on the U.S. So the ONLY way to prevent an attack on the U.S. is through stronger security measures within our country.

2, 3) It is NOT our job to spend trillions of dollars, have our soldiers killed every single day for years and years and play referee in a region where the people have been fighting for thousands and thousands of years. Our presence will not make the Shiites and Sunnis get along.

4) If Kuwait and Saudi Arabia want to protect their oil reserves, they can. Iraq currently does not have a military, let alone weapons or WMDs. So your reason that we need to "protect" Kuwait and Saudi Arabia's oil reserves is just typical neo-con bullshit. IRAQ IS NOT A THREAT TO ANYONE.

And finally, the American taxpayer backed the efforts to overthrow Saddam Hussein because they were mislead by their government into thinking that Iraq had WMD's and connections with 9/11 and Osama bin Laden, not for any other reason you've gave.

Everything you said is wrong.

1. There could be Al Quada in most countries around the world, but most of these countries are politically stable enough and have security services that can work with the United States to hunt and detain Al Quada members. At this time though, Afghanistan and Iraq are currently not in a position to do that on their own, and need the assitance of the United States in developing security forces, a politically stable government, and growing economy in order to effectively combat Al Quada without the presence of the US military.

2) 3. Since the end of World War II, the United States has become heavily involved in various regions of the world that are vital to its economy and the economy of the world. This has created significant stability around the world that major wars on the scale of the two World Wars earlier in the 20th century have been prevented. The whole attitude that x groups have been fighting for thousands of years and will continue to fight is simply not true as Europe can attest to now.

Your beloved U2 rejected that arguement when they supported US military intervention in both Bosnia and Kosovo in the mid and late 1990s. The fighting between Serbs, Croats and Muslims in Bosnia was far worse than anything that has been seen in Iraq, yet after US military intervention the ethnic groups in those countries have been at peace. These conflicts are not impossible to end, and it is often in the security interest of the United States to bring them to an end.

4. I was not discussing the current situation in Iraq with this point. While no entity currently inside Iraq actually threatens Kuwait or Saudi Arabia, that may not be the case 10 years from now if the United States withdraws pre-maturely. Iraq was a threat to the region when Saddam was in power and proved this through its unprovoked invasion and attacks on four different countries, the largest WMD use by any single leader in history, as well as the violation of 17 UN Security Council Resolutions and the failure to verifiably disarm of all WMD as required by the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire agreement.

The United States has bombed Iraq every year since the 1991 Gulf War and finally had to invade with other countries because the peaceful and military methods tried in the previous 12 years had failed to bring about the necessary changes in Saddam's behavior and verifiable disarment. The majority of Americans have supported such policies. If Americans really felt they had been misled, they would never have re-elected George Bush nearly 2 years after the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

 

[Infinity]

Well they reelected him cause they are slow and stupid. Just one year after the 04 elections polls were showing that Kerry would have won if the vote was taken again.

 

[Irvine511]

At the national level the Shia party's must get over their insecurity about giving the Sunni's several of the things they want, and the Sunni's have to realize that the days of Saddam are over and that as a minority, they will be stronger if they can forge alliances with like minded Kurds and Shia groups.

phew! i'm glad someone had the insight and tenacity to just come out and say that these people simply need to get over hundreds of years of sectarian hatred and nearly a century of cohabitating a completely fabricated country called "Iraq."

it really is this easy, folks! Iraq is Europe, you know, because both regions are economically and politically and culturally comparable. everything's comparable so long as you place the two nouns in the same sentence!

 

[Irvine511]

Your beloved U2 rejected that arguement when they supported US military intervention in both Bosnia and Kosovo in the mid and late 1990s. The fighting between Serbs, Croats and Muslims in Bosnia was far worse than anything that has been seen in Iraq, yet after US military intervention the ethnic groups in those countries have been at peace. These conflicts are not impossible to end, and it is often in the security interest of the United States to bring them to an end.

this couldn't be a better example of how you cite facts that don't ever support your conclusions.

both bono and the edge are on the record as being against the invasion and occupation of iraq. they are against it. they were against it in 2003. they dedicated a huge portion of the Vertigo concert to criticizing Abu Ghraib and US excesses of power. but because they supported a DIFFERENT situation in a DIFFERENT country in a DIFFERENT time (yes, i know you're going to say that Iraq and Bosnia are exactly the same thing, but that doesn't meant that they are in any way, shape, or form), you're implying that they somehow support Iraq. they don't. they've said they don't. you're implying they've said things that they've actually said the opposite of. your inferences are fabrications, and your conclusions are wrong. and they have been since 2004.

so stop it. don't make shit up.