Why will the republicans win in 2008?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
anitram said:


I don't think this is true this time around. The Republicans are the ones who can't come up with a candidate to energize any large faction, much less the base.


I agree. I actually think the Dems have a really exciting field of candidates this year and as far as I can tell most Democrats, though they certainly have their preferences right now, will unite around any one of the leading candidates that ends up getting the nomination. Anyone here want to cop to being a Democrat who won't vote for Hillary if she gets the nom?
 
2861U2 said:


What are you talking about? With the exception of Ron Paul, most Republicans still support this war and the idea of combating terrorism rather than running away.

And please explain your Jesus comment. I don't know what that means.

Many conservative voters are fed up with this war, they don't see it going well.

Huck is making comments that Romney's Jesus isn't the same Jesus he believes in. McCain and Guiliani aren't known for their strong faith or moral compasses. Paul hasn't even mentioned Jesus... Last time around the Republicans definately wanted a theocracy, this time around the canidates aren't exactly unified on that.
 
Irvine511 said:




all of the Democratic front runners think we will be in Iraq well into 2009.

most people don't want to walk out right now, but most people don't think a 15 year or more occupation is the correct course of action.

you're doing what Strongbow/STING does, which is take a minority position amongst a minority of people, and pretending that this speaks for everyone and anyone who disagrees with you. i think a pullout tomorrow would be disastrous. but i think a long term occupation is even worse.

Its a well documented fact that nearly all Democrats wanted to withdraw all US combat troops by March 31, 2008 including the 3 leading Democratic contenders at the start of 2007. But, although they would never admit it, the success of the surge in 2007 has forced them to change their tune. A leading Democratic contender not committing to have all US troops out by 2013 would have been unthinkable 1 year ago, but its now the position of the three leading candidates.
 
Irvine511 said:
when has Hillary called for a withdrawal date?

a withdrawal is one thing -- even Bush wants to start reducing troops once he gets enough coverage from "the surge" -- but she has not mentioned a specific date to withdraw by.

most of us are concerned by the size of the US embassy being built over there and the groundwork that has been laid for a long term occupation in the heart of the most instable region in the world that will do nothing but breed more hatred and swallow billions and billions more into a cesspool of ethnic hatred that's quickly devolving. the best thing we can do is get off their oil and move on to other things -- like the actual "war on terror," for lack of a better term -- rather than incur the debt, loss of morale at home and inspiration of rage abroad that a long term occupation of Iraq/Mesopotamia/the Middle East would entail.

an endless military and economic commitment to Iraq makes no sense, unless you're willing to say that, yes, we are there to secure the oil. but i'd respond by saying that the only rational response to oil dependence is to get ourselves off the junk rather than have our very own Afghanistan that will surely rot the US from within just as surely as it brought down the Soviet Empire.

The difference with Bush is that he is only going to withdraw troops if conditions on the ground warrent it and would have no problem sending troops back if they are needed.

Maintaining the US military and economic committment to Iraq is more important than the committment to Afghanistan. If your such an advocate of withdrawal from the region, why are you not calling for a withdrawal from Afghanistan which is actually devoid of Al Quada attacks unlike Iraq, and certainly does not have, nor does it border area's that have natural resources that so heavily impact the planet like Iraq does.

Sectarian conflict, and muslim anger over the US occupation are issues with Afghanistan as well, yet, the response from so many Democrats is the opposite of Iraq policy.
 
i find it really funny when people talk about what a great success "the surge" has been, especially after they spent 4 years holding their hands over their ears, shutting their eyes, and screaming, EVERYTHING IS GOING JUST FINE IN IRAQ! EVERYTHING IS GOING JUST FINE!"

touting the success of "the surge" is an admission of the colossal errors made from the start of the invasion, and it's an indictment of Rumsfeld/Bush/Cheney and an admission of a total lack of post-war planning. if you admire "the surge," you should be disgusted by the incompetence of the years 2003-2007 in equal measure.

i know McCain is. this is why he himself is surging. it's not that everyone believes in the Iraq mission. it's that McCain knows that he can use "the surge" to distance himself from the disaster of the Bush policies and to demonstrate that he, as opposed to Junior, is competent.
 
Irvine511 said:
i find it really funny when people talk about what a great success "the surge" has been, especially after they spent 4 years holding their hands over their ears, shutting their eyes, and screaming, EVERYTHING IS GOING JUST FINE IN IRAQ! EVERYTHING IS GOING JUST FINE!"

touting the success of "the surge" is an admission of the colossal errors made from the start of the invasion, and it's an indictment of Rumsfeld/Bush/Cheney and an admission of a total lack of post-war planning. if you admire "the surge," you should be disgusted by the incompetence of the years 2003-2007 in equal measure.

i know McCain is. this is why he himself is surging. it's not that everyone believes in the Iraq mission. it's that McCain knows that he can use "the surge" to distance himself from the disaster of the Bush policies and to demonstrate that he, as opposed to Junior, is competent.


Its a great success, because typically with any large scale counterinsurgency or nation building exercise, such a turn around takes years NOT months to achieve. Typically throughout history, most invasions and occupations involve far heavier casualties than was seen in Iraq prior to the Surge, so despite the mistakes made early on, Iraq prior to the surge can be viewed as a success when one considers the multiple accomplishments of building a new Iraqi military, the formation of a government, as well as long and difficult negotiations with militia and insurgent groups that started as far back as 2004. Any occupation that faces such a large insurgency will experience many of the problems that the coalition has in Iraq. In some cases the occupying force may be forced out. While its true that the initial occupation could have been handled better, its inaccurate to say that it was a "failure" as there were plenty of achievements during that time frame as well. What makes the surge different is how rapid the success and accomplishments have been, but there was plenty of good ground work done for it in the years prior to January 2007 which contributed to the success this year as well.
 
ntalwar said:


I don't know what type of "success" it is when 1.5 million Iraqi refugees flee to Syria, and underage girls have to turn to prostitution to survive:

http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSL2966165920071231?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0

If things are so great, why haven't they returned home?

The refugees you speak of fled over a long period of time, and it will take a long period of time to resettle them all. Nation building is a long and difficult task. Despite that, the success this year in 2007 has been dramatic, and any time casualty levels drop by this magnitude and at this rate, it is a great accomplishment, and only those at the extreme corners of the political spectrum will refuse to acknowledge it.
 
Strongbow said:

The refugees you speak of fled over a long period of time, and it will take a long period of time to resettle them all. Nation building is a long and difficult task. Despite that, the success this year in 2007 has been dramatic, and any time casualty levels drop by this magnitude and at this rate, it is a great accomplishment, and only those at the extreme corners of the political spectrum will refuse to acknowledge it.

So for the ones that do return - they will simply starve:

http://www.unobserver.com/layout5.php?id=4220&blz=1

The Iraqi government announcement that monthly food rations will be cut by half has left many Iraqis asking how they can survive.

The government also wants to reduce the number of people depending on the rationing system by five million by June 2008.

The goal apparently is the depopulation of civilians.
 
Strongbow said:

Despite that, the success this year in 2007 has been dramatic, and any time casualty levels drop by this magnitude and at this rate, it is a great accomplishment,

This year has been the most deadly for American troops in Iraq since the invasion nearly five years ago, US military figures out today show.
 
Strongbow said:
the success this year in 2007 has been dramatic, and any time casualty levels drop by this magnitude and at this rate, it is a great accomplishment

It has been dramatic.

Because of the surge.

And thus, by not finding a solution that is sustainable, it's not an accomplishment.
 
anitram said:

For the entire 12 months of 2007, it is true that US deaths have been the highest this year by a slight margin, but when you look at how much the death rate has been reduced from where it was in the Spring to December 2007, the results are impressive. 120 US troops were killed by hostile fire in May 2007 in Iraq. In December 2007, only 14 US troops were killed by hostile fire. That is an enormous turn around.

Plus, if we include both US troops killed and wounded, 2004 remains the year of the highest casualties for US forces. In addition, 2007 was the year of the lowest killed and wounded since 2003 for the USA.
 
phillyfan26 said:


It has been dramatic.

Because of the surge.

And thus, by not finding a solution that is sustainable, it's not an accomplishment.

Most Democrats said the surge would accomplish nothing and that all US combat troops should be withdrawn by March 31, 2008. The surge can technically last longer than what has been planned provided the President mobilized National Guard Brigades that have already been to Iraq over the past 5 years or extended troops in the field even longer. Few want to do that, but those are options the President has if he feels conditions on the ground warrent it. Another thing you seem to be forgetting is that the increase in troops has actually only raised the total level of troops on the ground temporarily by 30%, and most of it in Baghdad. Just as important has been the success politically at the local level, economic progress, the change in military tactics, as well as improvements in intelligence and vehicle design. Even when surge troops leave, these factors will still be there, plus the Iraqi military is more capable now than it has ever been and provides the security for half of Iraq's provinces.
 
Strongbow said:


Do you know of a single Iraqi refugee that has returned to Iraq in December 2007 that has starved to death?

You don't starve within one month when you receive some food daily.
 
Vincent Vega said:


You don't starve within one month when you receive some food daily.

Duh, do you know of any significant number of returning Iraqi Refugees in 2007 that have starved to death?
 
Strongbow said:
Most Democrats said the surge would accomplish nothing and that all US combat troops should be withdrawn by March 31, 2008. The surge can technically last longer than what has been planned provided the President mobilized National Guard Brigades that have already been to Iraq over the past 5 years or extended troops in the field even longer. Few want to do that, but those are options the President has if he feels conditions on the ground warrent it. Another thing you seem to be forgetting is that the increase in troops has actually only raised the total level of troops on the ground temporarily by 30%, and most of it in Baghdad. Just as important has been the success politically at the local level, economic progress, the change in military tactics, as well as improvements in intelligence and vehicle design. Even when surge troops leave, these factors will still be there, plus the Iraqi military is more capable now than it has ever been and provides the security for half of Iraq's provinces.

I'm sorry, but what success politically? What accomplishments?
 
What's the number of people that have returned home?
What does the food ratios look like?
For how many people are the food ratios calculated and for how long?

The article indicates that the normal ratio hardly was enough to live on, and now they have to survive on half that amount. How long until food supply is sufficient to feed the nation?
How long will th people living there accept the status quo, and why should those who have already fled return to Iraq?
Still so many open tasks, but all you're talking about the whole time is how the numbers of people killed fluctuate from month to month.
 
phillyfan26 said:


I'm sorry, but what success politically? What accomplishments?

The relationships the coalition has developed with various Sunni tribes have significantly contributed to the security and development of violence plagued provinces such as Anbar. The US military has been working to drag away elements of the insurgency for years now, and has been very successful in doing so in 2007 leading to new intelligence that has helped to combat other insurgents refusing to give up as well as Al Quada. They have worked with the local authorities in communities all over Iraq to help bring services and security that the national government has not been able to deliver at the current time. Economically, the amount of electricity and water that is available to most communities is significantly higher than it was at the start of the year. Markets and businesses that had been closed for years have opened up again. The Iraqi military is now providing all the security for 9 provinces, half of Iraq essentially. The refugee flow out of Iraq has stopped and has started to reverse itself. But more important than all the above is the sharp reduction in violence and civilian and military casualties. The number of lives saved has been enormous.
 
Vincent Vega said:
What's the number of people that have returned home?
What does the food ratios look like?
For how many people are the food ratios calculated and for how long?

The article indicates that the normal ratio hardly was enough to live on, and now they have to survive on half that amount. How long until food supply is sufficient to feed the nation?
How long will th people living there accept the status quo, and why should those who have already fled return to Iraq?
Still so many open tasks, but all you're talking about the whole time is how the numbers of people killed fluctuate from month to month.

Tens of thousands have returned home recently. The food ratios are apparently equal are better than where they fled too. The article uses a number of statistics with questionable accuracy. Most of the people living there agree the situation has improved and as long as that continues, they will more than just accept, but actively support it. The US military is getting a large increase in help from civilians in locating and capturing insurgence and Al Quada members. Its for the civilians who have fled Iraq to judge whether or not they would be better off where they are or in Iraq. At the current time, some would be better off returning, some would not.

There are plenty of open tasks as their always is in any operation of such magnitude and there will be for many years to come.

You may think that the numbers of people killed from month to month is irrelevant, but it is not. It is in fact the single most important statistic. Nothing trumps security. Without security, progress in the area's is not really possible.

But despite the fact that your country has abandoned Iraq for the past 5 years, significant progress is being made on the ground economically, politically at the local level, and especially in the security situation.
 
Strongbow said:


Do you know of a single Iraqi refugee that has returned to Iraq in December 2007 that has starved to death?

Do you know for a fact that people are not starving?

IRAQ: Saddam Provided More Food Than the U.S.

BAQUBA, Dec 27 (IPS) - The Iraqi government announcement that monthly food rations will be cut by half has left many Iraqis asking how they can survive.

The government also wants to reduce the number of people depending on the rationing system by five million by June 2008.

...

According to an Oxfam International report released in July this year, "60 percent (of Iraqis) currently have access to rations through the government-run Public Distribution System (PDS), down from 96 percent in 2004."

The report said that "43 percent of Iraqis suffer from absolute poverty," and that according to some estimates over half the population are now without work. "Children are hit the hardest by the decline in living standards. Child malnutrition rates have risen from 19 percent before the U.S.-led invasion in 2003 to 28 percent now."

While salaries have increased since the invasion of March 2003, they have not kept pace with the dramatic increase in the prices of food and fuel.

"My salary is 280 dollars, and I have six children," 49-year-old secondary school teacher Ali Kadhim told IPS. "The increase in my salary was neutralised by an increase in the price of food. I cannot afford to buy the foodstuffs in addition to the other necessary expenses of life."

...

"No security, no food, no electricity, no trade, no services. So life is good," said one resident, who would not give his name.

Many fear the food ration cuts can spark unrest. "The government will commit a big mistake, because providing enough food ration could compensate the government's mistakes in other fields like security," a local physician told IPS. "The Iraq will now feel that he, or she, is of no value to the government."

http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=40613
 
Last edited:
Oh, now we've abandoned Iraq? No, we just didn't see any sense in starting war after war before the first is solved and stable enough. We didn't see sense in going to war on a very questionable base, with no real backing by the UN and no plan by the government that was pushing for this war.
Yes, we supported the US in Afghanistan, and I think we did so with good reason (although sometimes with bad execution), but we didn't support going to war with Iraq just while we are at it.

How are you going to keep violence low after the surge has ended?
For half a year violence seemed to have significantly lowered, but we don't see how the government in Baghdad is exploiting this security.
Tens of thousands is not much compared with 1.5 million refugees, and from what I've read the food regios where they have fled to is rather equally bad as equally good, so no wonder why they don't stay there.
The question also is, how much security is behind the numbers of people killed, and how sustainable is this security.
 
Back
Top Bottom